Author Topic: Fighting fires with retired A-10s! (Read 680 times)

gofaster · « **on:** July 08, 2004, 10:01:12 PM »

Interesting tidbit from my weekly AvWeb mailing. Sounds like a pretty good idea to me. They could fit tanks full of fire suppressant chemicals on all of those hardpoints.

Quote

(Image removed from quote.)
Surplus A-10s Suggested As Tankers...
There's nothing like a little adversity to inspire innovation and a California company says it has part of the solution to the problem of aging large air tankers. Aero Tech Ltd. has been trying to convince California authorities and the U.S. Air Force to test A-10 attack aircraft as medium-sized air tankers. The company's Web site claims governments are wasting time and money continuing to convert 50- and 60-year-old designs into effective firefighting aircraft when the FireHog version of the venerable Warthog carrying about 1,550 gallons of retardant would provide a modern alternative. Aero Tech claims a converted A-10 could carry nearly half the load of a large air tanker (which generally carry between 3,000 gallons and 5,000 gallons) and zip it to a fire at 340 mph. Once on station, the highly maneuverable jet would be fully aerobatic, even with a full load, and be able to drop its load more precisely than large air tankers. What's more, the company claims, the electronic gear already installed on A-10s, like infrared scanners and bomb-aiming devices, would be invaluable in fighting fires.

john9001 · « **Reply #1 on:** July 08, 2004, 10:29:23 PM »

let me take a wild guess here, Aero Tech Ltd is selling converted A-10's?

Nefarious · « **Reply #2 on:** July 08, 2004, 10:33:29 PM »

What would even be cooler is a huge Water/Retardant Cannon where its 30mm is located. Pilots could come down and strafe the fire with High Pressure water.

On a more serious note, What do you think the Cost of Operations Difference is between an A-10 and a large tanker aircraft.

Hawklore · « **Reply #3 on:** July 08, 2004, 11:27:27 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nefarious
What would even be cooler is a huge Water/Retardant Cannon where its 30mm is located. Pilots could come down and strafe the fire with High Pressure water.

Was thinking the same, quite possible, but expensive, and you'd need somethign to compress air quick enough to fire several high powerd shots, cause a stream of water would'nt be as High of Pressure...

demaw1 · « **Reply #4 on:** July 08, 2004, 11:28:22 PM »

great idea,i can see where it would work better than anything has....i believe it would cost a little less to maintain then present tankers and would get there to help much faster...so what if they have a 10s to sell a good idea is a good idea...with that logic we would still be in horse drawen buggys cause old ford might make a profit....gees must everything be political

Gunslinger · « **Reply #5 on:** July 08, 2004, 11:31:45 PM »

one thing for sure is that it can carry a watermelon load of weight and its manuverable enough to get the water were its needed. I dont know about a watergun on the front though....

I do know that those ejection seats are cake to work on....that's a plus for mait costs......not to mention if the fire fights back....the A10 can make it home missing have a wing and an engine flame out.

Red Tail 444 · « **Reply #6 on:** July 08, 2004, 11:33:31 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nefarious
What would even be cooler is a huge Water/Retardant Cannon where its 30mm is located. Pilots could come down and strafe the fire with High Pressure water.

OOOOOOO You beat me to the post!

Where the HELL do I sign up?

AWMac · « **Reply #7 on:** July 09, 2004, 12:13:38 AM »

Bit*hin, just Bit*hin...Too Kewl.... would make great ScreenSavers.

Pongo · « **Reply #8 on:** July 09, 2004, 12:53:46 AM »

They tried with Thunderbolts after WW2. Might as well try with these. They had drop tanks filled with retardent that they dropped.

Sandman · « **Reply #9 on:** July 09, 2004, 12:59:50 AM »

Cool...

rpm · « **Reply #10 on:** July 09, 2004, 01:01:27 AM »

The water cannon would be a no go. You wouldn't want that goo overspray on your windshield. The rest of the idea sounds genius to me.

crowMAW · « **Reply #11 on:** July 09, 2004, 06:11:57 AM »

It's actually an old idea...it was brought up when the USAF wanted to retire the A-10 back in the late 80's-early 90's (the first Gulf War changed some minds about retirment). It would probably be pretty decent. But the best air water tanker in the world is made in Russia and the US gov't won't use it:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28739

Vulcan · « **Reply #12 on:** July 09, 2004, 06:30:21 AM »

now you've done it... (starts timer for Boroda's arrival).

Nilsen · « **Reply #13 on:** July 09, 2004, 06:50:00 AM »

How about using tomahawks filled with fire retards instead of explosives

Eagler · « **Reply #14 on:** July 09, 2004, 07:07:59 AM »

they could naplam firebreaks