OT = About the CA Fires. Food For Thought.---

[BARKER]

I don't know where to Post this so I put it here unless the Mods want it somewhere else ok. I will digress to the Mods. Thanks guys.
I am thinking about the Fires out West in general. I can't help but wonder. There is ONE fire that has burned over 36,000 Acres, Obliterated whole towns, killed a number of people etc.. My thinking is this: Why is it that with the technology we have today that we don't just launch about 500 - 1,000 Giant planes that can drop like 5,000 gallons of water each have them fly over a given spot until all the areas were covered and just water bomb the hell out of the fires. That much water would put out ANY fire. The planes could circle after a drop, land in the Pacific Ocean, load up again then bomb the fires again and again until they are OUT. The POTUS signs the Orders and off We go. We can conquer whole Nations but We can't put out a fire ??
When We bombed Iraq in Shock & Awe the majority except in a few cases were bombs We had left over from the Vietnam War. We did not even begin to touch Our current stock except in special cases. I believe We have enough planes that can do this. I don't see why We can't do the same with these fires. I just don't understand it.
What say ye Folks ?? I await. PEACE:RONB

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

DR.ÖTEK Metal Detector, Waterproof Gold Detector, Pinpoint & Terrain Modes, Professional Metal Detector - Grab it through Amazon!

[Isaac]

it costs money

 

[BigWaveDave]

I would think the logistics of flying that many tanker planes would be a challenge... How many 747 pilots hanging around, waiting for a fire?

 

[G.I.B.]

it costs money

Yeah, lots and lots of money.

...and preventing fires has become a problem in itself. When nature can't burn off the ground cover every now and then- it's becomes really big really fast when it goes up.

And, the forrest and woods are now full of people.

5,000 gallons of water weighs 41,750 pounds. WAAAAAY more than most general aircraft can carry. And they are not certified for fire fighting, don't have the plumbing for it, pilots require specific training, there are horrendous winds coming from the fire, out of the mountains, it's a very specialized type of flying.

 

[kcm]

Isaac said probably the most important aspect - money. If they spend that much money on a fire, it's a one-time deal with nothing to show for it (in their eyes). They would much rather have the money in their own pockets and, as a runner-up, to go into the pockets of their buddies.

That said, I have no idea just how many water-bomb aircraft might be available at any given time. One would "think" that there might be some re-purposed, former military aircraft that could be modified rather than put to pasture (or desert or scrapyard). Then again, modifying aircraft also costs a lot of money.....which is why the entire Air Force One fleet gets a makeover every year. ...Well, that and security reasons.

The last thought comes from Dave - logistics. However, it's not the lack of pilots that would be the logistical problem here. the main problem in having too many aircraft would be logistical coordination between ATC (Air Traffic Control), fire crews, Fire Control, local law enforcement, news helicopters, etc. Conditions are always changing on the scene, so the more aircraft there are, the more likelihood of an in-flight incident....potentially exacerbating the situation.

 

[BARKER]

Hi; I agree with all the above BUUTTT I think We have a Military Force that would be very capable of carrying out this type of mission. That eliminates 747 Pilots hanging around. There is also no reason We can't build Aircraft Tankers capable of delivering that kind of water power. We DO have the technology for sure. As for money, How much does it cost to rebuild a whole town ?? or 2 or 3 ?? How much is lost on all those houses being destroyed ?? How much timber value is lost ?? Think about it. I await. PEACE:RONB

 

[kcm]

Ron, is difficult to go into a "full" discussion on this as it would most definitely include some amount of politics.

I agree on the use of military pilots. When in the Air Force, there were some pretty big fires flared up out west. I and some others volunteered to go out and help, but our Civil Service officers wouldn't hear of it! Their way of thinking was, if 2 people from each shift call in sick, then we'll be technically understaffed. ...And this coming from a base where the Security Police put out 95% of all real-world fires with an extinguisher! It's all politics. It's all about covering your butt. ...Let someone else jump in and help; it's not OUR responsibility!

I wonder if you would be amazed just how many such lame excuses I heard back then for not letting any of us go. Some of us wanted to take personal vacation to go and go help. Vacation was denied.

Another oft-used excuse was that we weren't "specifically trained" in the art of wild land firefighting. Bull!! Lots of uses, even if it would have meant just helping out as support to the specialized teams. I'm sure the pilots get a lot of the same stuff thrown at them. It's all politics, and it all stinks!

 

[favored papa]

wouldn't it just be easier to just cut the forest in a checkerboard pattern and have less fuel for the fires, that would give jobs to people in every small town. and we could have a huge industry in that one thing . We could call it the logging industry and the tree clearers could be called fire preventers, or call them loggers. And the trees they cut down could be used for houses and fuel to heat homes and even make electricity. And the lumber from the trees could be sold to pay the fire preventers so it would be self supporting and sustainable, and we would not have to use tax money to pay for 100,000 airplanes, and pilots.

wait did i say that or was it a dream? or just a flash back to when I was a kid.

 

[BosnMate]

I'm not really familiar with this, but here in Oregon we have a company that has built a huge firefighting airplane. For some reason the Forest Service refuses to use that particular plane when fighting fires. Like I said, I don't know the particulars, but we have a radio talk show host, Lars Larson, that brings it up quite often when they have a fire that is getting away from them.

 

[Honest Samuel]

I am sorry for these fine people who lose their lives and homes to these wild fires every year.

 

[favored papa]

now that I agree with.

 

[galenrog]

Google "global super tanker". It can be anywhere in North America in 4.5 hours, and nearly anywhere in the world in 20 hours. Can deliver 20,000 gallons of ******ant at a time.

Bosn', the 747 that Evergreen had proved itself several times across the globe until the company went under several years ago. It was obtained by the people who outfitted the newer 747-400 with much of the original equipment, with appropriate repairs, modifications, and system replacements, as needed. Let's hope it can do the job here as well as its predecessor did elsewhere.

 

[Dr. Syn]

Hmm, instead of building a one off fire fighter plane, why not do as the military has done and make up a "package" to fit inside say a C130?
Bladder tank slides in the back, fill with water, open the cargo door, and open up the bladder to dump the load.

Fire contained, remove "package" and plane goes back to hauling troops, Humvees, pallets of $100.00 bills for bribes, or such.

Kinda on the same vein, I fly R/C, and have two birds set up just like this. One is a semi C160, the other a semi C130. Both have removable "packages".

I can drop paratroopers, vehicles, candy, even one set up for a charcoal dust drop. Package sits near the CG of the plane so balance is barely affected.
Hmm, maybe I could drop some water balloons.

 

[Alex Burke]

I think part of the reason the fires we see now are so bad is because we suppress fire so much. Most forests burn and regenerate over time and when we keep them from burning in natural cycles we make more dry fuel and the potential for worse fires. If we put all fires we would just end up with worse fires in the long run maybe? Obviously we have to put out fires when people or property is at risk but if we put out every fire maybe fires would be worse. Not sure just thinking out loud

 

[Tuberale]

wouldn't it just be easier to just cut the forest in a checkerboard pattern and have less fuel for the fires, that would give jobs to people in every small town. and we could have a huge industry in that one thing . We could call it the logging industry and the tree clearers could be called fire preventers, or call them loggers. And the trees they cut down could be used for houses and fuel to heat homes and even make electricity. And the lumber from the trees could be sold to pay the fire preventers so it would be self supporting and sustainable, and we would not have to use tax money to pay for 100,000 airplanes, and pilots.

wait did i say that or was it a dream? or just a flash back to when I was a kid.

Yeah! What favored papa said!

 

[kcm]

WTF... I really really really hope you are just kidding.

When I said "politics", I wasn't referring to Washington DC. I was referring to the countless boobs that refuse to risk getting any scratches on their shiny, new equipment. After all, it'll be at least 2 or 3 years before they can then get another brand new model. Gov't spending is truly wasteful, as so much goes to people "behind the scenes", so to speak.

I hope the "voting-related" comments don't get this thread locked.

 

[kcm]

I think part of the reason the fires we see now are so bad is because we suppress fire so much. Most forests burn and regenerate over time and when we keep them from burning in natural cycles we make more dry fuel and the potential for worse fires. If we put all fires we would just end up with worse fires in the long run maybe? Obviously we have to put out fires when people or property is at risk but if we put out every fire maybe fires would be worse. Not sure just thinking out loud

Hey Alex - yes, that's a lot of it. Too many tree-huggers out there keeping anyone from doing anything about it, either. I'm all for "greening-up" the Earth, but as civilization continues its expansion, some amount of preventative measures are gonna HAVE TO be implemented.

 

[Alex Burke]

Yeah there are environuts obv but part of the problem is many interests besides environuts don't let nature run its course. The environuts want humans out and to reintroduce Grizzlies and actually probably want the world to burn Rational people live with nature and the land and realize natural fire breaks caused by other fires are good as someone above pointed out so its a multifaceted bunch of groups and interests trying to put out every fire.

 

[BARKER]

Hi; Jersey Ben; I wish I was kidding but I wasn't. SOMETHING has to be done. If you have any better ideas then I would like to hear them ok. I just want to see or hear SOLUTIONS.!!! NOT the same old rhetoric that get NOTHING done and is costing Americans their very lives while those in power sit on their ars-enals. There is NO EXCUSE for it at all. What say ye Folks ?? I await. PEACE:RONB

 

[BARKER]

Hi kcm; BINGO.!!! IMO If the Establishment is not working to the point that Folks are dying here literally then I believe it is time to change the Establishment. I honestly view Trump is the chance to do that. No, I do not trust him 100% but he is Our only chance at getting things changed. This Nation needs a darn good wake up call. Trump is it. I believe the People are fully awake & aware of the situation. That it "IS" those in positions of Power who have fallen complacently asleep at their helms. I wonder if We posed this stated situation to him "something" would get done. PEACE:RONB