Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: 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.
(http://www.avweb.com/newspics/firehogsunset.jpg)
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.
-
let me take a wild guess here, Aero Tech Ltd is selling converted A-10's?
-
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.
-
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...
-
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
-
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. ;)
-
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? :)
-
Bit*hin, just Bit*hin...Too Kewl.... would make great ScreenSavers.
:aok
-
They tried with Thunderbolts after WW2. Might as well try with these. They had drop tanks filled with retardent that they dropped.
-
Cool...
-
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.
-
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
-
now you've done it... (starts timer for Boroda's arrival).
-
How about using tomahawks filled with fire retards instead of explosives :p
-
they could naplam firebreaks :)
-
"The Canadians have their CL-215 tankers and CL-415 SuperScoopers. They developed the CL-215 – which Robinson considers superior to anything the United States has – in 1967, and they've been rebuffed by the Forest Service for 35 years.
They have not been able to come in and compete for Forest Service contracts because they are not a private contractor association," Robinson explains. "They're part of the Canadian government. It's a quasi-private, public-private partnership, but the Forest Service does not want its contractors to face outside competition."
According to Robinson, the only place Canadian planes are used for firefighting is in Los Angeles County, which leases two of them every year and has for about 10 years, ever since the Malibu canyon fires."
I always wondered why idle bombers up here were never sent down south when you guys got hit hard by forest fires, now i know it was stupidity.
Both countries should have an agreement and consolidate their resources.
-
Originally posted by rpm371
The water cannon would be a no go. You wouldn't want that goo overspray on your windshield.
The new damage model in AH2 is the perfect proving ground for that contingency.
Please being the A-10 FireHog to Aces High (might have to start a new thread for this idea)