Bombing vs Wildfires

Unread postPosted: 04 Sep 2019, 02:21
by sark0y
One of possible solutions is, to use special bombs. Such device consists of three main components.

1. retardant.
2. explosive.
3. shrapnel-less shell.

Explosion sprays retardant + makes vacuum bubble over hot spot, thereby fire gets choking. The most valuable plus here will be the minimal time to respond on new hot spots: bombs can be delivered to with artillery or airplanes. Actually, bombing makes possible to exploit terrains against wildfires. Such exploitation can be calculated and executed literally in online mode. Yet another plus, great precision of attacks makes possible to manage counter-fire ops across large areas with extremely scarce resources. Following plus is, there doesn’t need to deploy multiple crews and machinery on the ground. Thanks to this strategy, even Weather will provide much less obstacles to fight Wildfires.

P.S. actually, bombing already was used..

however, it seems not enough efficient to use ordinary bombs.

Re: Bombing vs Wildfires.

Unread postPosted: 04 Sep 2019, 09:04
by linkomart
IIRC the reason for dropping bombs on that fire was that it was on an old bomb practice area, and there were unexploded munitions there, hence it was regarded too dangerous for the fire fighters to enter the area.
They tested to bomb the fire, it worked so and so.

If you do this in a regular fire, you have the risk that the bomb will not explode, and you have double the trouble. And it is rather useless if the fire is in the roots below the surface.

my 5 cent.

Re: Bombing vs Wildfires.

Unread postPosted: 04 Sep 2019, 09:08
by linkomart
...or Artillery pracitce area, what ever.

Re: Bombing vs Wildfires.

Unread postPosted: 05 Sep 2019, 20:56
by sark0y
linkomart wrote:If you do this in a regular fire, you have the risk that the bomb will not explode, and you have double the trouble..

bombs can be geared w/ failsafe ignition + beacon (passive & active) for clean-up crews.
And it is rather useless if the fire is in the roots below the surface.

yes, underground fires are whole another story.

Re: Bombing vs Wildfires

Unread postPosted: 06 Sep 2019, 04:05
by madrat
Saab's secret leg up the competition in Canada? Surely this was what persuaded the Brazilians.

Re: Bombing vs Wildfires

Unread postPosted: 06 Sep 2019, 07:26
by linkomart
madrat wrote:Saab's secret leg up the competition in Canada? Surely this was what persuaded the Brazilians.


Dropping a bomb can any dumb aircraft do. Just isn't really effective. Not sure hov a FAE (Fuel air explosive, like the mother of all bombs) would work, but then you need a C-130 or something simmilar, I guess.

Re: Bombing vs Wildfires

Unread postPosted: 06 Sep 2019, 10:23
by popcorn
Nuke 'em. :devil:

Re: Bombing vs Wildfires

Unread postPosted: 08 Sep 2019, 00:51
by sark0y
linkomart wrote:
madrat wrote:Saab's secret leg up the competition in Canada? Surely this was what persuaded the Brazilians.


Dropping a bomb can any dumb aircraft do. Just isn't really effective. Not sure hov a FAE (Fuel air explosive, like the mother of all bombs) would work, but then you need a C-130 or something simmilar, I guess.

conventional bomb, of course, inefficient. But retardant-filled ones could do that sh*t quite well. Actually, the very point has been to attack Wildfire from its very start, thus it takes minimal efforts.

Re: Bombing vs Wildfires

Unread postPosted: 09 Sep 2019, 03:54
by sark0y
patrol drones geared w/ anti-fire bombs can minimize time of reaction. So, attack on fire will run in precise manner == bombs can be activated by timers o/& remote control. Actually, there can be bombs w/ different design == for instance, explosion can be directed or non-directed, different retardants + some charges can be non-explosive to produce a lot of heavy smoke to make oxygen-depleted zone. In short, most troublesome hot spots can be suppressed w/o wasting resources. And bonus == anti-fire army is dual-using thing :D :mrgreen: :wink:

Re: Bombing vs Wildfires

Unread postPosted: 19 Sep 2019, 02:46
by sark0y