JohnBurke

Awarded a contract is not at all the same as carded, or operational. Both Minden and Neptune were supposed to field the BAE146 for several successive years, before they made it onto the fireline.

Presently the Aero Air MD-87 doesn't have FAA or Interagency AirTanker Board approval, isn't carded, and isn't available to accept the contract.

JamesNoBrakes

Yeah, but operating costs, turn-around, hours flying, those can all be far more important than just how much it can haul.

JohnBurke

How much it can haul is also relative to the operating conditions, both at the reload base, and the drop site. There are a lot of factors to consider.

The 747, in theory, was a great idea. The cost per gallon of retardant delivered to the fire was high. The turn-around times were significant. The number of reload bases was small; not many bases or fields could handle that aircraft or were set up for it, nor were reload pits stressed for it, or in many cases, big enough for it. That meant longer times to and from the fire. It meant higher drop heights, faster drop runs, and often a lot more retardant than was needed tactically for the drop or the fire. A swept-wing turbojet also offers significant disadvantages in a turbulent low-altitude environment at slower speeds, especially in smoke, especially populated with numerous other aircraft operating, in mountainous terrain.

Similarly, other types of aircraft have their own limitations. The most numerous tankers out there presently are SEATs (single engine air tankers); almost exclusively Air Tractor AT-802's. These 800 gallon tankers can use small airfields, can operate closer to the fire, have very short turn-around times, are maneuverable and designed for retardant delivery, but also have a government-mandated restriction of 30 knots wind over the fire (not a bad thing for anyone operating close to terrain in the mountains, in a fire). Strong crosswinds are also a concern at the reload location, and obviously they're not as fast as a P3 or 747. Each aircraft has it's own operating limitations with respect to the job, not the least of which are stresses induced on the airframe by repeated exposure to mountain firefighting conditions.

NoJoy

Any new news on Neptune? Are they in the process of appealling the USFS decision on the BA-146s for fire fighting?

tahoejace

Neptune recently dropped their protest of the NextGen contract award. There must be something going on behind the scenes, but nothing public as yet.

JohnBurke

I'm looking at the AFF tracking system right now; T-40, a BAE-146, is active at Gateway airport in Phoenix, probably supporting a fire just outside Safford. The airplane is working.

tahoejace

Neptune's -146's, T-40 & T-41, along with their 6 P2V's, are on a legacy contract. The company got aced out of a NextGen contract after 10 Tanker won their protest of the original contract award. Neptune's legacy contract is good for a max of something like 5 years, IIRC, unless the Feds amend it or come up with some kind of supplemental NextGen contract award. Like I said, something is probably going on behind the scenes for them to drop their protest, so I wouldn't be surprised to see some kind of announcement soon about their future beyond the current contract.

See this post on FireAviation.com.

skytrekker

There was a recent report that USAF offered @ 14 C27J's to USFS.

Even with the time required to design, build, and certify the needed equipment and train the civilian crews, makes a tempting contract if USFS were to accept and then contract it out?

tahoejace

An option for the C-27's is for the USFS to adopt a gov owned/contractor operated model like California does with its S-2's and OV-10's. I don't know how seriously they're considering the C-27's, but there has been some discussion about making a "mini-MAFFS" system for them to use rather than a permanent modification. Regardless of what system they would adopt, it would have to be designed, manufactured, installed, tested, and then certified by both the FAA and the Interagency Airtanker Board for use on fires. That is not a quick process.

As for the C-27's themselves, last I heard, the Air Force was studying what exactly they will do with the tails. No decisions or offers have been made thus far.

JohnBurke

Neptune's contracts are the same as any contract that's been written on a three year or five year basis. They're actually one-year contracts, renewable for a term thereafter. All tanker contracts work that way, and are divided up between exclusive use, and call when needed. Additional arrangements exist with other agencies, as well as state contracts.

The P2's were busy again today, too.

The problem for most of the other "next gen" companies is that the aircraft aren't ready to go. The contracts exist, but don't mean squat until the aircraft is fielded. In years past, we saw the same thing with A-10's, and of course the Bierev 200, and Evergreen tried to get on the scene with the 747, but it just didn't work.

We may see the MD87's online this year, and we may see some of the other equipment, too, but thus far the approvals aren't there. Despite the hype of "next gen," the equipment isn't actually available for use.

The idea of the government getting into the tanker business has been bantied around for quite a few years now, but they've never been able to make a go of it. The BLM didn't do well with it's OV10's, the Sherpas didn't pan out as well as hoped, and even the leadplane's are contracted out through Dynamic now (but with government pilots). Almost all jump ships are contract. The closest the government has (outside of CDF/CalFire) to owning a tanker fleet is the use of the MAFFS equipment, which is part-time as-available use, and has some significant limitations.