General Electric T700 swap?
DCV
dcv
Smoke jumpers; google will tell you more.
It was only a further clarification, as the first reply was overly simple. No firefighting method is good enough on its own, and the aerial firefighting is the best way to cover large areas in short time.
Now playing
Jezza did it before it was cool:
Next up: Blackwater gets a contract to form a parachute brigade.
Wait, are you actually seriously thinking that A-10 should be used as a firefighting aircraft? I thought you were just ranting on how they should be given to the Navy’s Army’s Air Force, but this.....DAMN!
Aerial firefighting has multiple purposes, ranging from first response to accessing unreachable areas, and it is never meant to be the sole method of fighting a wildfire
We can start using F-35s as the lead planes for the air tankers (firefighting aircraft).
We are discussing the use of MANPADS.
Clickbait has peaked with that dumb headline.
Besides being the most effective way to fight wildfires at large scale, yeah, I don’t really see any evidence of its effectiveness.
You have a fiscal logic of an 8-year old child.
I’d rather say that its biggest disadvantage is $$$; I’d say they are a bit pricy per flight hour, when compared to helos and fixed wing water bombers.
A week ago, I actually told Putinbots that I would join them briefly, just to take a piss, but I really didn’t know how to start, what to write.
Military, aviation or naval history of the 20th century.
Regardless of what do you think or wrote regarding the original topic of discussion, you have presented us with an information or an idea, which I consider false, and I have written why do I think so.
Nitpicking, it’s medium altitude, if you want to be technical. Wast majority of the strikes have happened from the altitudes that are detrimental to accuracy.
I didn’t know that, but I would certainly like to know more facts about it; whether if it was Ballaban who had done that (won’t be the first time), and what exactly were you saying.
Actually, of all the nuclear subs that are lying on the bottom of the sea, none has (yet) emerged as a serious ecological hazard. Nuclear reactors are usually much more protected than usual fuel bunks, and the fuel is less dense than water so it floats to the surface and the washes up on the shore.
No. Who is he and what is that?