Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Seems suited for Gum Grape, you only leave home during fire season.

  1. #1
    Patron
    Join Date
    07 Oct 14
    Location
    San Jose, CA.
    Posts
    268

    Seems suited for Gum Grape, you only leave home during fire season.

    Boeing is proposing a new way to fight fires.

    http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/0...res-Submission

  2. #2
    Senior Contributor SteveDaPirate's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Aug 13
    Location
    Kansas City, United States
    Posts
    1,271
    And the shell would release its load of fire suppressant by virtue of a complex array of gizmos, including a timer, an altimeter, a global positioning device, temperature and pressure sensors and a distance measuring device.
    I wonder what these things will cost per 3 gallon pop? An Excalibur guided artillery shell is going for a bit under $70,000 per shot.

    If the prices are similar, delivering suppressant equivalent to a single run from a C-130 with MAFFS is going to take ~570 artillery shells and cost about $30 million. In which case you could have just purchased a whole new C-130 and doubled your capacity instead.

    It's a cool idea and it has the potential for high volume, but it seems like to much technology is stuffed into each artillery shell to be cost effective. I hope I'm wrong!

  3. #3
    Senior Contributor DonBelt's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Oct 08
    Location
    Taxachusetts, somewhere between Boston and Wista
    Posts
    1,065
    How much will a 16 inch shell hold? Or is this the wrong thread for that? ;-)

  4. #4
    Senior Contributor Monash's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Mar 10
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,482
    Couldn't you just stuff the same technology into a 'dumb' 2000 pound bomb and give the B52 fleet (or just about any other flying platform) something to do in the summer months?

  5. #5
    Patron
    Join Date
    07 Oct 14
    Location
    San Jose, CA.
    Posts
    268
    Quote Originally Posted by Monash View Post
    Couldn't you just stuff the same technology into a 'dumb' 2000 pound bomb and give the B52 fleet (or just about any other flying platform) something to do in the summer months?
    The USDF experimented with a P-47 and bombs. It was successful but there were other less hazardous means available.

  6. #6
    Resident Curmudgeon Military Professional Gun Grape's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Mar 05
    Location
    Panama City Fl
    Posts
    8,431
    Quote Originally Posted by Dazed View Post
    Boeing is proposing a new way to fight fires.

    http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/0...res-Submission
    Hey!!!!! I've still got most of my teeth
    Its called Tourist Season. So why can't we shoot them?

  7. #7
    Patron
    Join Date
    07 Oct 14
    Location
    San Jose, CA.
    Posts
    268
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Grape View Post
    Hey!!!!! I've still got most of my teeth
    Gun Grape

    I may be miss reading this post. This proposal is from Boeing not Rodger Ailes. I think your resume/experience should be sufficient. No need to go that extra mile.

    Oh wait percussion.
    Last edited by Dazed; 28 Aug 16, at 18:14.

  8. #8
    Patron
    Join Date
    07 Oct 14
    Location
    San Jose, CA.
    Posts
    268
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
    I wonder what these things will cost per 3 gallon pop? An Excalibur guided artillery shell is going for a bit under $70,000 per shot.

    If the prices are similar, delivering suppressant equivalent to a single run from a C-130 with MAFFS is going to take ~570 artillery shells and cost about $30 million. In which case you could have just purchased a whole new C-130 and doubled your capacity instead.

    It's a cool idea and it has the potential for high volume, but it seems like to much technology is stuffed into each artillery shell to be cost effective. I hope I'm wrong!
    For the C-130H, the per-hour rate is $10,386; for the C-130J, it is $9,111.Mar 27, 2012

  9. #9
    Resident Curmudgeon Military Professional Gun Grape's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Mar 05
    Location
    Panama City Fl
    Posts
    8,431
    Quote Originally Posted by Dazed View Post
    Gun Grape

    I may be miss reading this post. This proposal is from Boeing not Rodger Ailes. I think your resume/experience should be sufficient. No need to go that extra mile.

    Oh wait percussion.
    It was the thread header that prompted my response

    Seems suited for Gum Grape,
    Last edited by Gun Grape; 28 Aug 16, at 22:05.
    Its called Tourist Season. So why can't we shoot them?

  10. #10
    Defense ProfessionalSenior Contributor tbm3fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Nov 09
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Posts
    3,107
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Grape View Post
    It was the thread header that prompted my respose
    I was soooo confused. Thanks for clearing that up as I thought it was a new fruit.

  11. #11
    Patron
    Join Date
    07 Oct 14
    Location
    San Jose, CA.
    Posts
    268
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Grape View Post
    It was the thread header that prompted my respose
    D'oh misspelled Gun sorry.

  12. #12

    Military Professional
    Military Professional S2's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 06
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    10,826
    "...the shell would release its load of fire suppressant by virtue of a complex array of gizmos, including a timer, an altimeter, a global positioning device, temperature and pressure sensors and a distance measuring device."

    Funny shit and a sure way for Boeing to turn this into a money-maker but last I checked we've been firing WP and HC Smoke for years and train to fire other chemical munitions. No projo needs all that crap stuffed into it. Just reduces payload on an otherwise base-ejecting shell with a mechanical or electronic fuze mated for airburst. Settings for the fuze time and all the rest can be computed damned easily and remotely from a thingy called an FDC. BTW, it really only takes one guy who gets it to run/compute firing data from this "FDC".

    If Gun Grape knows some out of work arty types we could have a contractor team ready in, oh...about 5 minutes. Piece of cake and set our rates somewhere just below a C-130J. Small matter to produce projos filled with retardant and without all that other bull. Dramatically reduce the projo costs by relying upon time and battle-tested fire direction techniques and you could really saturate a fire fast because you could fire a LOT more ammo.
    "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
    "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

  13. #13
    Global Moderator
    Military Professional
    Defense Professional
    Albany Rifles's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Apr 07
    Location
    Prince George, VA
    Posts
    8,346
    Quote Originally Posted by S2 View Post
    "...the shell would release its load of fire suppressant by virtue of a complex array of gizmos, including a timer, an altimeter, a global positioning device, temperature and pressure sensors and a distance measuring device."

    Funny shit and a sure way for Boeing to turn this into a money-maker but last I checked we've been firing WP and HC Smoke for years and train to fire other chemical munitions. No projo needs all that crap stuffed into it. Just reduces payload on an otherwise base-ejecting shell with a mechanical or electronic fuze mated for airburst. Settings for the fuze time and all the rest can be computed damned easily and remotely from a thingy called an FDC. BTW, it really only takes one guy who gets it to run/compute firing data from this "FDC".

    If Gun Grape knows some out of work arty types we could have a contractor team ready in, oh...about 5 minutes. Piece of cake and set our rates somewhere just below a C-130J. Small matter to produce projos filled with retardant and without all that other bull. Dramatically reduce the projo costs by relying upon time and battle-tested fire direction techniques and you could really saturate a fire fast because you could fire a LOT more ammo.
    It would never happen. Every National Guard FA unit in a state would be screaming for the business?

    And I had to giggle thinking up tooling up and dropping spades in a municipal park. And the service battery requirements!!!!

    On a serious note, I know that ski lodges and the Forest Service use 105mm to set off controlled avalanches.
    “We had been hopelessly labouring to plough waste lands; to make nationality grow in a place full of the certainty of God… Among the tribes our creed could be only like the desert grass – a beautiful swift seeming of spring; which, after a day’s heat, fell dusty.”
    ― T.E. Lawrence, Seven Pillars of Wisdom: A Triumph

  14. #14
    Senior Contributor DonBelt's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Oct 08
    Location
    Taxachusetts, somewhere between Boston and Wista
    Posts
    1,065
    I'm still waiting for the outcry to reactivate the battleships for the fire suppression role. There will never be another fire within 25 miles of the coastline.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. It's a Grape day on WAB!
    By YellowFever in forum World Affairs Board Pub
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 29 Jan 14,, 17:43
  2. Home ammunition storage - fire safety?
    By citanon in forum Small Arms and Personal Weapons
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 09 Jan 13,, 05:49
  3. Muslims against rescue of women from fire by male fire fighters
    By Samudra in forum International Politics
    Replies: 85
    Last Post: 23 Jul 06,, 06:20

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •