so this is probably a stupid question, but it's been bugging me.......

so canada is still on fire. we all know they "water bomb" those fires using water, or whatever other fire suppressant that they have. but i always see them just doing it one aircraft at a time. wouldn't it make much more sense to attack these fires pretty much the same way that bombers used to attack targets? a whole formation.....even if it's just a box of 4........dropping on target at the same time?

 it would seem to me that it'd have a much better effect than dropping one payload now, then another in a few minutes, then another in another few minutes......

I think it's more of a logistical thing - not sure where they're getting the water from on this - but filling one plane at a time vs filling multiple?  Or are they amphibious planes skimming a lake to fill up tanks?  Also - most of these planes are owned by Civilian companies - not sure if all of the pilots know how to fly in formation.  

I'll ask my BIL if he knows - he's an Air Force pilot (now in reserves) and also flies for a commercial airline.

14 hours ago, Krdshrk said:

I think it's more of a logistical thing - not sure where they're getting the water from on this - but filling one plane at a time vs filling multiple?  Or are they amphibious planes skimming a lake to fill up tanks?  Also - most of these planes are owned by Civilian companies - not sure if all of the pilots know how to fly in formation.  

I'll ask my BIL if he knows - he's an Air Force pilot (now in reserves) and also flies for a commercial airline.

i know they're mostly private companies up there doing that. i'd read an article years ago on a company that used tbm avengers, but i dunno how they filled them. i think there was a company using pby catalinas too. i think those guys just do a low approach over the lake, skimming the surfact to pull water in........

i only really asked because well.....like i said.......we never sent just one b17 to bomb that refinery. it was always 50 or 100. so.....why wouldn't that work to extinguish a fire? lead drops, rest of the box drops too.....rather than say....20k gallons, now we've got 80k gallons dropped.

 of course i'm just some schmuck mechanic, so there's probably something i'm overlooking there.......

https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/01/us/canada-wildfire-smoke-us-air-quality/index.html

A lot of the fires are in remote areas or treacherous terrain...

Prioritizing protecting people, infrastructure and watersheds...

18 hours ago, Krdshrk said:

https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/01/us/canada-wildfire-smoke-us-air-quality/index.html

A lot of the fires are in remote areas or treacherous terrain...

Prioritizing protecting people, infrastructure and watersheds...

This.

And the area is known to have a history of forest fires.

Putting them out at all costs leads to even bigger fires later on.

 

On 7/1/2023 at 11:41 PM, 1LtCAP said:

i know they're mostly private companies up there doing that. i'd read an article years ago on a company that used tbm avengers, but i dunno how they filled them. i think there was a company using pby catalinas too. i think those guys just do a low approach over the lake, skimming the surfact to pull water in........

i only really asked because well.....like i said.......we never sent just one b17 to bomb that refinery. it was always 50 or 100. so.....why wouldn't that work to extinguish a fire? lead drops, rest of the box drops too.....rather than say....20k gallons, now we've got 80k gallons dropped.

 of course i'm just some schmuck mechanic, so there's probably something i'm overlooking there.......

The problem is there probably isn't 100 airplanes in North America capable of dropping water or fire retardant.  I'm not privy to any inside.info on this but I'm guessing there's maybe 20-25 aircraft in North America capable of dumping water.

Now, if B52s could be equipped to dump water, with bombay and wing racks filled with water bombs that may have an effect.  However, there are only about 70 B52s in service.

On 7/1/2023 at 11:47 PM, Krdshrk said:

https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/01/us/canada-wildfire-smoke-us-air-quality/index.html

A lot of the fires are in remote areas or treacherous terrain...

Prioritizing protecting people, infrastructure and watersheds...

i would imagine that even with that in mind, if they're air dropping, they could modify to get more retardent on the fire......

 

then again though, i'm wondering if in the long run it's better to let it burn for now, considering that a lot of those fires possibly started due to poor forest management.........

Lack for resources and manpower.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/why-the-canadian-wildfires-are-still-burning--and-sending-smoke-across-the-us-215341898.html

This comment covers the problem.

It took many decades for the conditions to get "perfect" for this.

Once it has exhausted the fuel.

And it will eventually.

It will take many more decades before this happens again.

It is bad, but in the end, the forests and the wildlife will be the better for it.