Remove ads

Boeing Proposes Firefighting Artillery Shells

CompassJimbo

CompassJimbo

Where’s Your North?
Location
The former Rubber Capital of the World
Article:
Putting a new twist on the notion of fighting fire with fire, Boeing has patented a plan for packing howitzer shells with retardant chemicals and lobbing them into the path of a forest fire.

With wildfires raging across the West again this summer, another tactic might be welcome. Talk about a hot market.

But there's no sign Boeing has even tested its thinking on this idea — no working prototypes are required to win a patent.

The patent, on which a half dozen Puget Sound Boeing employees are credited as the inventors, claims the approach could be more efficient and flexible than dropping the retardant from airplanes or helicopters.

It notes that aircraft can't fly at night or during bad weather, and "deliver fire-retarding material at a low rate which often makes them inadequate to control forest fires."

With artillery, the patent asserts, retardant could be delivered in a variety of patterns — "a concentration barrage, a creeping barrage, a rolling barrage, or a block barrage" — without regard to light or weather conditions and with reduced risk to firefighters.


(Source: Seattle Times)

Funnily enough, I had a similar idea as a kid, except it involved using air-dropped bombs, but this is more practical considering how field artillery can put up a steady barrage.

However, I can't help but feel that the sound of all those field guns going off will freak evacuees out unless they're told beforehand. But still, this is actually pretty damn smart to use all of those big guns to save lives and property rather than destroy them. I'm not sure how many artillery pieces (both self-propelled and towed) we have lying around, but it's probably "a bunch".

Firefighting looks to be pretty damn interesting should these shells hit the field. Bravo, Boeing.
 
They had these on the old Gerry Anderson Thunderbirds series, therefore this idea has my backing 110%.
 
While amusing, I'm kinda suspicous of it actually being useful. You're probably going to need several thousand shells to equal one pass of a fire bomber, and even with the slowing methods shown, thats a lot of junk being left behind.
 
Vejut said:
While amusing, I'm kinda suspicous of it actually being useful. You're probably going to need several thousand shells to equal one pass of a fire bomber, and even with the slowing methods shown, thats a lot of junk being left behind.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

You highly underestimate the amount of material a shell can hold under pressure. You also overestimate the enviromental damage the shell's would be able to do, especially if there are efforts to collect the shell's after.
 
Wiki claims a m110 chemical shell carries about 7kg of mustard or phosphorus. I'm guessing that those are probably similar density to firfighting foam, and that given shells tend to be limited by needing wall thickness enough to be fired, that these would be similar as well. It shows a bombadier 415 mid sized water bomber has a retardant capacity of 6000-odd kg. Thats pretty close to a thousand shells to the water run, and given it mentions things like 100 runs for one aircraft on one fire....
Also, said chemical shell weighs 44kg, so your're talking several tons of junk for the equivalent of one boming run....
 
Vejut said:
Wiki claims a m110 chemical shell carries about 7kg of mustard or phosphorus. I'm guessing that those are probably similar density to firfighting foam, and that given shells tend to be limited by needing wall thickness enough to be fired, that these would be similar as well. It shows a bombadier 415 mid sized water bomber has a retardant capacity of 6000-odd kg. Thats pretty close to a thousand shells to the water run, and given it mentions things like 100 runs for one aircraft on one fire....
Also, said chemical shell weighs 44kg, so your're talking several tons of junk for the equivalent of one boming run....
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

1) The M110 is not practical for firefighting.

2) gas holds under different pressures than chemical liquids consisting in the foam, expansion rates apply.

3) A lot of the retardant used in bombing runs is wasted. They work by Basicly smothering the fire and preventing it from spreading. This is hard to do when half or more of your payload turns into a fine mist.

4) It is cheaper to haul several tons of material via firetruck like they are already capable of doing then it is to fly, maintain, and operate aircraft. 1 million dollars is a cheap fix on aircraft. Citation: Myself as an Aircrewman

Do you even realize why we still use mortars instead of just relying on bombing runs beside practical application of aircraft not always available?

It's more cost effective.

Edit:

Also, next time provide citation for your claims, I shouldn't have had to have looked it up and scan four different wikipedia articles to find what you were talking about, and check your spelling.
 
Last edited:
Neat sounding idea, but it sets off a lot of military industrial complex bells in my head. Defense contractor fuckers would propose something that gives them new contracts.
 
Not to mention, in Canada at least, there's a been a number of times the Army's been called up to help fight forest fires.

It would simply be another tool in their kit to help deal with such problems
 
Aamerica is so......... outdated...... the Chinese had this for a long time......

Unleash the firefighting RPG mobs!


Firefighting mortars!


Firefighting tanks!


What? insufficient Dakka you say? try having this: firefighting MLRS!
 
HeavyArmor said:
Aamerica is so......... outdated...... the Chinese had this for a long time......

Unleash the firefighting RPG mobs!


Firefighting mortars!


Firefighting tanks!


What? insufficient Dakka you say? try having this: firefighting MLRS!
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Typical China to come up with a good idea, but not use it to it's full potential. What were they thinking, making firefighting RPGs and Motorized Rockets, but not firefighting Naval Artillery and ICBMs? Pathetic.
 
Simulium Novitius said:
3) A lot of the retardant used in bombing runs is wasted. They work by Basicly smothering the fire and preventing it from spreading. This is hard to do when half or more of your payload turns into a fine mist.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I would have thought that was another reason why the shells were unlikely to be cost effective. The payload of waterbombers is concentrated in one massive dump that smothers the fire. How effective is a series of much smaller deposits of retardent over a relatively large area? Are they likely to seriously hinder the movement of a fire front?

There's also the logistics - while aircraft are not as cost effective as trucks, they're much easier to operate (in some respects) in the kind of terrain you get wildfires in. I would have thought an Army artillery unit would probably be more effective using its vehicles and men to build firebreaks and rotate crews onto tankers.
 
Boristus said:
Truely, the most American way to fight Forest Fires.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
No, I thought of an even more American way.
General Schatten said:
Honestly the only thing that could make this any more SB would be for Boeing to make a modernized B-52 to play Arc Light with wildfires.

"So how did you Americans put out that fire larger than some countries?"
"We carpet bombed it."
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
 
I'm not at all knowledgeable about fire fighting but this sounds like a great idea for a situation where the terrain is too treacherous to reliably navigate but an airdrop would be overkill on a limited fire. I'm thinking of a house in the woods with a windy dirt route that a car sized vehicle can barely navigate.

Maybe my situation was a bit too specific for the cost but I'd need to see the cost to say and they don't seem to have numbers on that.
 
thejester said:
I would have thought that was another reason why the shells were unlikely to be cost effective. The payload of waterbombers is concentrated in one massive dump that smothers the fire. How effective is a series of much smaller deposits of retardent over a relatively large area? Are they likely to seriously hinder the movement of a fire front?

There's also the logistics - while aircraft are not as cost effective as trucks, they're much easier to operate (in some respects) in the kind of terrain you get wildfires in. I would have thought an Army artillery unit would probably be more effective using its vehicles and men to build firebreaks and rotate crews onto tankers.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Finer control over the distribution would be a very good thing.

And an army arty unit is going to have jackall for crew with aircraft training, and jackall equipment for large-scale clearing. You want logistics units for the first if you use the military at all, and combat engineers for the second.
 
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top