Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • DonBelt
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Albany Rifles
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • S2
    replied
    "...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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dazed
    replied
    Originally posted by Gun Grape View Post
    It was the thread header that prompted my respose
    D'oh misspelled Gun sorry.

    Leave a comment:


  • tbm3fan
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gun Grape
    replied
    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,, 22:05.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dazed
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Dazed
    replied
    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,, 18:14.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gun Grape
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Dazed
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Monash
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • DonBelt
    replied
    How much will a 16 inch shell hold? Or is this the wrong thread for that? ;-)

    Leave a comment:


  • SteveDaPirate
    replied
    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!

    Leave a comment:


  • 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
Working...
X