C-17s as water bombers

[Ross Oliver]

The "DC-10 as water bomber" thread reminded me of an article
I read recently, and I was able to dig it up.


The following article appeared in the August 2003 issue of
Boeing Frontiers, the internal Boeing company magazine:


Water bombs
Boeing invention could make C-17 a firefighter
BY RICK SANFORD

A beach ball-sized water bomb may some day take the danger out of aerial
firefighting and greatly reduce the time and cost to extinguish a blaze.

The concept stems from a program sponsored by the Boeing Chairman's
Innovation Initiative, which provides the context for Boeing people with
great ideas to create new businesses.

An idea from William Cleary, a project manager in the Boeing Integrated
Defense Systems Advanced Airlift and Tanker organization, involves an
out-of-the-box method of fighting fires.

Dropping water or fire retardant on a fire requires conventional aircraft
to swoop dangerously low in order to deliver their cloud of liquid where
needed. Heat and thermal winds make the chore challenging, dangerous and
often less effective.

"The sooner you can knock a fire down, the better," said Cleary, a designer
of the proposed water bomb system. "In May of 2000, New Mexico's Los Alamos
fire burned for three days before exploding into a 500-square-mile behemoth."

So how does a beach ball do the trick? The system, called Precision Aerial
Fire Fighting, uses up to 2,800 biodegradable, faceted spheres stacked on
pallets within cardboard containers. This delivery technique is similar to
the way U.S. Air Force C-17s airdropped yellow humanitarian ration packages
to Afghanis in 2001.

The unit's spherical shape minimizes airflow resistance. Each sphere contains
50 pounds of water and easily remains intact while it falls true to target.
The spheres burst on impact at the heart of the fire. A single C-17 PAFF
mission could airdrop 140,000 pounds of water on multiple "hot spot"
targets-equivalent to nearly 100 helicopter deliveries.

"What's more," said Cleary, "the C-17 can airdrop from 1,000 to 2,000 feet
above ground level using precision navigation and airdrop instrumentation,
remaining safely away from the fire and winds," he said. "If a C-17 were used,
this delivery system is remarkably cost effective, and the savings in lives
and property make it an interesting possibility for the Air National Guard."

As with today's aerial firefighting, a ground safety fire commander would
ensure ground personnel are clear of the airdrop zone and would direct
airdrop targeting.

Advantages of C-17 Precision Aerial Fire Fighting
1) Safe aircraft altitude for airdrops
2) Use of collapsible, biodegradable containers
3) No special aircraft-equipment-corrosion problems
4) Multiple "hot spot" targeting with one aircraft
5) Increased payload, coverage, and speed to fire
6) All-weather/terrain aerial firefighting day or night
7) Computer-aided targeting
8) Bomblets falling true to target with an even burst

Significant resources are spent each year at local, state and federal levels
to fight wildfires. California alone spends $1.3 billion annually fighting
wild land fires.

The next phase of Precision Aerial Fire Fighting would include aircraft
airdrop testing later this year. Based on analysis to date, this testing
would verify that the PAFF system offers immediate containment of potentially
devastating forest fires and pave the way for development of this innovative
weapon in the war on fires.

[Brian Burger]

C-17s dropping water balloons on fires? Cool...

.... but in a Canadian aviation history book I read a while back, they
talked about early aerial firefighting attempts, including dropping paper
bags full of water on the fire. It delivered the water, but the impact of
the bag often sent sparks flying everywhere, spreading the fire while
putting out the centre bit of it.

It seems to me that the C-17+water balloon could have the same flaw. The
advantage would be that you could drop a whole LOT of the things, of
course.

Interesting, anyway. Anyone want to be that with the extra-destructive
fires in California this year there'll be more interest in firefighting
come next budget time in lots of places?

(It was a bad year in BC, too, but we've had worse, and the rest of
Canada seems to have gotten off fairly well...)

Brian.

[EDR]

In article >, Ross Oliver
> wrote:

> The "DC-10 as water bomber" thread reminded me of an article
> I read recently, and I was able to dig it up.
> The following article appeared in the August 2003 issue of
> Boeing Frontiers, the internal Boeing company magazine:
>
> Water bombs
> Boeing invention could make C-17 a firefighter
> BY RICK SANFORD

This was the April issue, right?

[mike regish]

How long would it take to fill, and keep refilling all these water balls?

mike regish

"Ross Oliver" > wrote in message
...
> The "DC-10 as water bomber" thread reminded me of an article
> I read recently, and I was able to dig it up.
>
>
> The following article appeared in the August 2003 issue of
> Boeing Frontiers, the internal Boeing company magazine:
>
>
> Water bombs
> Boeing invention could make C-17 a firefighter
> BY RICK SANFORD
>
> A beach ball-sized water bomb may some day take the danger out of aerial
> firefighting and greatly reduce the time and cost to extinguish a blaze.
>
> The concept stems from a program sponsored by the Boeing Chairman's
> Innovation Initiative, which provides the context for Boeing people with
> great ideas to create new businesses.
>
> An idea from William Cleary, a project manager in the Boeing Integrated
> Defense Systems Advanced Airlift and Tanker organization, involves an
> out-of-the-box method of fighting fires.
>
> Dropping water or fire retardant on a fire requires conventional aircraft
> to swoop dangerously low in order to deliver their cloud of liquid where
> needed. Heat and thermal winds make the chore challenging, dangerous and
> often less effective.
>
> "The sooner you can knock a fire down, the better," said Cleary, a
designer
> of the proposed water bomb system. "In May of 2000, New Mexico's Los
Alamos
> fire burned for three days before exploding into a 500-square-mile
behemoth."
>
> So how does a beach ball do the trick? The system, called Precision Aerial
> Fire Fighting, uses up to 2,800 biodegradable, faceted spheres stacked on
> pallets within cardboard containers. This delivery technique is similar to
> the way U.S. Air Force C-17s airdropped yellow humanitarian ration
packages
> to Afghanis in 2001.
>
> The unit's spherical shape minimizes airflow resistance. Each sphere
contains
> 50 pounds of water and easily remains intact while it falls true to
target.
> The spheres burst on impact at the heart of the fire. A single C-17 PAFF
> mission could airdrop 140,000 pounds of water on multiple "hot spot"
> targets-equivalent to nearly 100 helicopter deliveries.
>
> "What's more," said Cleary, "the C-17 can airdrop from 1,000 to 2,000 feet
> above ground level using precision navigation and airdrop instrumentation,
> remaining safely away from the fire and winds," he said. "If a C-17 were
used,
> this delivery system is remarkably cost effective, and the savings in
lives
> and property make it an interesting possibility for the Air National
Guard."
>
> As with today's aerial firefighting, a ground safety fire commander would
> ensure ground personnel are clear of the airdrop zone and would direct
> airdrop targeting.
>
> Advantages of C-17 Precision Aerial Fire Fighting
> 1) Safe aircraft altitude for airdrops
> 2) Use of collapsible, biodegradable containers
> 3) No special aircraft-equipment-corrosion problems
> 4) Multiple "hot spot" targeting with one aircraft
> 5) Increased payload, coverage, and speed to fire
> 6) All-weather/terrain aerial firefighting day or night
> 7) Computer-aided targeting
> 8) Bomblets falling true to target with an even burst
>
> Significant resources are spent each year at local, state and federal
levels
> to fight wildfires. California alone spends $1.3 billion annually fighting
> wild land fires.
>
> The next phase of Precision Aerial Fire Fighting would include aircraft
> airdrop testing later this year. Based on analysis to date, this testing
> would verify that the PAFF system offers immediate containment of
potentially
> devastating forest fires and pave the way for development of this
innovative
> weapon in the war on fires.
>
>

[C J Campbell]

"mike regish" > wrote in message
news:Dx5sb.121004$mZ5.817425@attbi_s54...
| How long would it take to fill, and keep refilling all these water balls?
|
| mike regish

I was wondering the same thing. Of course, the water bombs are one-time use
only.

I have visions of whole 'reservoirs' full of water bombs just waiting to be
deployed in time of emergency.

[Kevin McCue]

What would be the effect of one hitting a house/car/person? I think the
current "spray" that comes down is safer to all.

--
Kevin McCue
KRYN
'47 Luscombe 8E
Rans S-17 (for sale)




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[G.R. Patterson III]

Kevin McCue wrote:
>
> What would be the effect of one hitting a house/car/person? I think the
> current "spray" that comes down is safer to all.

If you're going to be hanging around near/in large forest fires, water balloons
will be the least of your worries.

George Patterson
If you're not part of the solution, you can make a lot of money prolonging
the problem.

[Big John]

If one fell on a fire fighter you'd have one dead fella.

Big John


On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 07:41:07 GMT, (Ross
Oliver) wrote:

>The "DC-10 as water bomber" thread reminded me of an article
>I read recently, and I was able to dig it up.
>
>
>The following article appeared in the August 2003 issue of
>Boeing Frontiers, the internal Boeing company magazine:
>
>
>Water bombs
>Boeing invention could make C-17 a firefighter
>BY RICK SANFORD
>
>A beach ball-sized water bomb may some day take the danger out of aerial
>firefighting and greatly reduce the time and cost to extinguish a blaze.
>
>The concept stems from a program sponsored by the Boeing Chairman's
>Innovation Initiative, which provides the context for Boeing people with
>great ideas to create new businesses.
>
>An idea from William Cleary, a project manager in the Boeing Integrated
>Defense Systems Advanced Airlift and Tanker organization, involves an
>out-of-the-box method of fighting fires.
>
>Dropping water or fire retardant on a fire requires conventional aircraft
>to swoop dangerously low in order to deliver their cloud of liquid where
>needed. Heat and thermal winds make the chore challenging, dangerous and
>often less effective.
>
>"The sooner you can knock a fire down, the better," said Cleary, a designer
>of the proposed water bomb system. "In May of 2000, New Mexico's Los Alamos
>fire burned for three days before exploding into a 500-square-mile behemoth."
>
>So how does a beach ball do the trick? The system, called Precision Aerial
>Fire Fighting, uses up to 2,800 biodegradable, faceted spheres stacked on
>pallets within cardboard containers. This delivery technique is similar to
>the way U.S. Air Force C-17s airdropped yellow humanitarian ration packages
>to Afghanis in 2001.
>
>The unit's spherical shape minimizes airflow resistance. Each sphere contains
>50 pounds of water and easily remains intact while it falls true to target.
>The spheres burst on impact at the heart of the fire. A single C-17 PAFF
>mission could airdrop 140,000 pounds of water on multiple "hot spot"
>targets-equivalent to nearly 100 helicopter deliveries.
>
>"What's more," said Cleary, "the C-17 can airdrop from 1,000 to 2,000 feet
>above ground level using precision navigation and airdrop instrumentation,
>remaining safely away from the fire and winds," he said. "If a C-17 were used,
>this delivery system is remarkably cost effective, and the savings in lives
>and property make it an interesting possibility for the Air National Guard."
>
>As with today's aerial firefighting, a ground safety fire commander would
>ensure ground personnel are clear of the airdrop zone and would direct
>airdrop targeting.
>
> Advantages of C-17 Precision Aerial Fire Fighting
> 1) Safe aircraft altitude for airdrops
> 2) Use of collapsible, biodegradable containers
> 3) No special aircraft-equipment-corrosion problems
> 4) Multiple "hot spot" targeting with one aircraft
> 5) Increased payload, coverage, and speed to fire
> 6) All-weather/terrain aerial firefighting day or night
> 7) Computer-aided targeting
> 8) Bomblets falling true to target with an even burst
>
>Significant resources are spent each year at local, state and federal levels
>to fight wildfires. California alone spends $1.3 billion annually fighting
>wild land fires.
>
>The next phase of Precision Aerial Fire Fighting would include aircraft
>airdrop testing later this year. Based on analysis to date, this testing
>would verify that the PAFF system offers immediate containment of potentially
>devastating forest fires and pave the way for development of this innovative
>weapon in the war on fires.
>

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Big John > said:
>If one fell on a fire fighter you'd have one dead fella.

Which is why the article said:

>>As with today's aerial firefighting, a ground safety fire commander would
>>ensure ground personnel are clear of the airdrop zone and would direct
>>airdrop targeting.

Of course we know that ground commanders NEVER make mistakes, right?

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
Some of you may have had occasion to run into mathematicians and to
wonder, therefore, how they got that way.
-- Tom Lehrer, "Tom Lehrer In Concert"

[Steve]

This is a really good idea.....considering Bombardier is closing the
Canadair 415 water bomber plant in North Bay, Ontario, there ust be an easy
replacement for new bombers
"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
> In a previous article, Big John > said:
> >If one fell on a fire fighter you'd have one dead fella.
>
> Which is why the article said:
>
> >>As with today's aerial firefighting, a ground safety fire commander
would
> >>ensure ground personnel are clear of the airdrop zone and would direct
> >>airdrop targeting.
>
> Of course we know that ground commanders NEVER make mistakes, right?
>
> --
> Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
> Some of you may have had occasion to run into mathematicians and to
> wonder, therefore, how they got that way.
> -- Tom Lehrer, "Tom Lehrer In Concert"

[Morgans]

"Brian Burger" > wrote in message
ia.tc.ca...
> C-17s dropping water balloons on fires? Cool...
>
> ... but in a Canadian aviation history book I read a while back, they
> talked about early aerial firefighting attempts, including dropping paper
> bags full of water on the fire. It delivered the water, but the impact of
> the bag often sent sparks flying everywhere, spreading the fire while
> putting out the centre bit of it.
>
> It seems to me that the C-17+water balloon could have the same flaw. The
> advantage would be that you could drop a whole LOT of the things, of
> course.
>
> Interesting, anyway. Anyone want to be that with the extra-destructive
> fires in California this year there'll be more interest in firefighting
> come next budget time in lots of places?
>
> (It was a bad year in BC, too, but we've had worse, and the rest of
> Canada seems to have gotten off fairly well...)
>
> Brian.
>

It is surprising to me that no one has mentioned the CL-215, or CL-415. If
you are not familiar with them, go to
http://www.buffaloairways.com/Aircraft/CL-215.htm or
http://users.chariot.net.au/~theburfs/canad415MAIN.html

The biggest advantage is the super fast round trips, when a source of water
is around. They are truly amazing to see in action.

NC bought a CL-215, a couple years back. Bargain priced at one million,
while they were trading up people to the CL-415.

Another amazing thing is that it took soo long for other states and military
to get permission to go help. That stuff needs to be streamlined.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans]

"Kevin McCue" > wrote in message
...
> What would be the effect of one hitting a house/car/person? I think the
> current "spray" that comes down is safer to all.
>
> --
> Kevin McCue
>

That harmless spray, can and will collapse a roof of a house in a heartbeat.
It looks harmless, but picture a foot of rain falling in 5 seconds, and it
will come into perspective.
--
Jim in NC