EU T-1 and T-2 copters in FKU are launched on I/A.
5 Likes
5 Likes
2 Likes
10 acres or less…And as you heard many of times “Better Red than Dead”! With out the drops on the Gann Fire there might be one or two less structures around. The S2’s are a hell of a tool for IA. They have slowed down a lot of fires before the ground troops could get there.
8 Likes
Someone needs to do an actual study on environmental degradation due to retardant vs more acres of fire.
Until then, I say business as usual.
6 Likes
Unfortunately that statistic is impossible to determine, so those against it always have that on their side. Also leads to poor, or lack of, use of tankers on lots of IA’s outside of California. People are wary of spending the money on tankers initially and putting an order in. I’ve seen it happen several times. One load, day one would’ve saved hundreds of millions on what became campaign fires. “Why did you waste money on that tanker!? The fire was only 10 acres!?” Well, it could’ve been 100,000+ acres if they didn’t use it, or could’ve been 5 acres because they had to clear the lines for a drop and disengage. Just no way to know what could’ve been.
8 Likes
3 Likes
5 Likes
5 Likes
It is July 20 2023 and still no movement on the refit of the C 130’s at Lockheed Marrieta.
2 Likes
I was told recently, last week, that they are waiting on Fed certification of adding a tank. I haven’t been near an air program in ages… so I have no clue what I am talking about… but that’s what I was told. At least for the airframes at MCC.
3 Likes
It is amazing Coulson can purchase a tanker and have it operational in about 2 years from purchase date and its been 10 years for CALFIRE and not one is tanked yet.???
1 Like
Civilian contractor VS. Government bureaucracy. It’s that simple.
4 Likes
Either way (Govt or civilian) the increase sure seems to be paying off
3 Likes
Maybe it will be Nancy’s last order of business.
1 Like
The irony in all of this is that Coulson is going to be the contractor for the Air Force installing their tank design, which they already have the STC for into the Cal Fire C-130s. Should be pretty simple, but the red tape is almost impenetrable.
4 Likes
Although many many factors are involved on the airworthiness side of getting the planes approved for flying, one of the issues facing CALFIRE is they don’t have pilots with that many flight hours. They are working on it and it just takes time. Coulson on the other hand has a much easier time hiring fully qualified pilots. And once again that’s just the difference in civilian vs gov’t hiring processes.
With a little time, CALFIRE will have a top notch C-130 program.
I just saw that they have 3 in different phases right now. All which have been in their possession less than 2 years.
7 Likes
Yep and with some bases that will house them will be getting retrofitted to accommodate the C-130 which will take place during winter time.
2 Likes
One of the reasons it’s taking so long is all the CalFire C130s have to go through depot level maintenance with the USAF, before they are handed over. This includes getting their wing boxes replaced, the part that attaches the wings to the fuselage. The older C130H, esp. those with many flight hours were showing fatigue cracks in the wing boxes, IIRC. The USAF has been dragging it’s feet, plus they have to be slotted in with all the other DOD C130 going through maintenance.
5 Likes
Stiff wing, piloted air tankers are yesterday’s thinking. CalFire has spent untold dollars and man hours to create its fleet of C-130’s. Suppose it had spent the same amount of effort into a fleet of Chinooks with night fly capabilities…and suppose these same Chinooks could be internally tanked to hold 3,000 gallons and the mud applied through a turret mounted monitor in the nose of the aircraft, directed by the co pilot. No more retardant in the water ways…directed application. Chinooks could operate out of any fixed base, or temporary fire assigned location.
6 Likes