Home
Posted By: Calhoun Artillery to fight wildfires? - 08/31/16
Doesn't sound workable to me.. but I'd sign up to shoot the guns. grin

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/31/boeing-wildfire-bullet-gun-patent
Quote
Boeing has come up with a new idea for fighting forest fires: shoot at them.

The aerospace company was awarded a patent this summer for what the application described as an “artillery shell comprising: an external surface; a cavity disposed within the external surface; a fire-retarding material disposed within the cavity; and a trigger configured to release the fire-retarding material.”

Basically, a giant fire-fighting bullet the size of a small dog, fired from a howitzer heavy artillery field gun.

“To retard forest fires, fire-retarding material is typically dropped into or in front of the advancing fire from aircraft such as helicopters or airplanes,” the application states. “Such aircraft deliver fire-retarding material at a low rate which often makes them inadequate.”

But the Boeing shell is designed to either detonate in front of a wildfire, spreading retardant materials on the ground to prevent the fire from progressing, or to detonate directly above it, dampening the flames.

Boeing designs and manufactures a wide range of rockets, satellites, and defense and security technology, as well as aircraft.

In 2010, a Russian company designed a firefighting bomb, to be dropped from an aircraft, which would disperse liquid over 1,000 sq meters when detonated, according to Wildfire Today.

Bill Gabbert, the editor-in-chief of Wildfire Today and a veteran wildfire fighter based in southern California, said there were “a number of reasons” why Boeing’s idea was not practicable.

“One, Boeing didn’t estimate the cost of these artillery shells,” he said. “If you’re shooting tens of thousands of them, the costs would be prohibitive.”

The main issue, he said, was that Boeing’s patent appeared to be based on a flawed premise – that releasing fire retardant directly on to a fire would put it out. “But retardant applied from the air does not put out fires,” he said. “In the best of circumstances, it can slow them down so that firefighters on the ground can get close and put them out.”

“Just that last fact invalidates the whole concept in my mind,” he added.

In an article in Wildfire Today, Gabbert called the firefighting shell a “lame-ass idea”, though he allowed that there could be a worthwhile application in the case of nuclear plant fires and emergencies with hazardous materials. “If a howitzer shell fired from miles away is the only way to deal with a nuclear meltdown, then that might be a feasible use for this idea.”

The patent stipulates that the outside surface of the shell would be made of “an environmentally safe material”, and that the projectile could be fired either in a “a concentration barrage, a creeping barrage, rolling barrage, or a block barrage”.

In a statement, Boeing said the company studies “many advanced concepts and evaluates many future designs in order to stay competitive in the marketplace”.

“The awarding of a patent does not necessarily mean that Boeing will be developing that concept or design in the near future.”

The western United States, reeling from the effects of a historic drought, is experiencing an unprecedented season for wildfires, with nearly double the five-year average of acreage affected in California, according to CalFire. In August, 80,000 people had to be evacuated near Los Angeles when the Blue Cut fire threatened their homes.
Sounds like a fun way to fight wildfires.
I want one.
Must work. Thanks to artillery, after about 1915-16, they had no real forest fires in no mans land. wink
I've got to believe that massive drops from aircraft like the L1011 that has been working the fires around here is more cost effective than an artillery barrage. But it'd be fun to watch!
Do you have very many forest fires in NE? wink

It sounds very workable to me. the AKRR, Alyeska ski resort, and DOT use artillery to control avalanches. Seems like it'd be less expensive than airplane time.
Posted By: pal Re: Artillery to fight wildfires? - 08/31/16
In Vietnam we were an air-mobile 105 Howitzer battery. A Chinook helicopter would each carry 1 gun and crew plus ammo load. Fire Direction Center Chinook carried the communications 3/4-ton truck with FDC crew. I can see where this idea could have merit with specially developed fire fighting rounds.
How many shells will it take to cover miles of fireline?
That L1011 can lay over a mile of retardant in a single drop. His turn around time is pretty long though. He flies from here to Boise to reload and refuel.
Sounds awesome! Fill a B-52 Stratofortress and carpet bomb!
Originally Posted by ironbender
Do you have very many forest fires in NE? wink

It sounds very workable to me. the AKRR, Alyeska ski resort, and DOT use artillery to control avalanches. Seems like it'd be less expensive than airplane time.

Actually, we do sometimes. In 2012 we had half a million acres burned, a large portion of it being river valleys.
smile

The only thing I've seen in NE is corn!
Originally Posted by ironbender
smile

The only thing I've seen in NE is corn!

Eastern half is corn. Western half is pasture (except close to rivers like along I-80 and the Platte River).

With a few small rivers going through that give us some much needed relief with a whole ton of cedars and cottonwoods. grin
Somehow I suspect that the greenies will find an environmental reason to ban these and just let the forest burn to the ground instead.
Well if they let it burn it puts tons of carbon in the air so it increases climate change BS. A win win for them.
I never said the argument would make any sense grin
Posted By: BMT Re: Artillery to fight wildfires? - 08/31/16
Mobile and effective for getting into difficult terrain is my guess
could have used this just now. straw field caught and it was only half baled. it was a race but got it 80% cleared. hate straw fire.
I would think it would be easier to deploy from an aircraft.
Originally Posted by ironbender
smile

The only thing I've seen in NE is corn!



One of the reasons the old Lock, Stock, and Barrel store in Valentine NE closed up, was because the owners got burned out in a prairie fire. (Their homes, not the store)
That cost them so much money they couldn't keep the store open. Too bad, too, it was a heckuva nice place to visit on PD trips, and to order from.
They'd had several fires there in the area that year, and in previous years, too. It was cracklin' dry in JUNE. No trees can do that, along with hot sun and lots of wind.
Originally Posted by Snake River Marksman
How many shells will it take to cover miles of fireline?
That L1011 can lay over a mile of retardant in a single drop. His turn around time is pretty long though. He flies from here to Boise to reload and refuel.
I was just getting ready to ask the same question. I also wonder if the explosion does more damage to the landscape than the fire. A fire will pretty much leave the land as it is but an explosion won't.
Posted By: pal Re: Artillery to fight wildfires? - 08/31/16
The explosion can be air burst with zero damage.
I assume they are air burst rounds. Seems it would be a more effective dispersal method.
Oops. Didn't see pals response.
Originally Posted by Calhoun
Originally Posted by ironbender
smile

The only thing I've seen in NE is corn!

Eastern half is corn. Western half is pasture (except close to rivers like along I-80 and the Platte River).

With a few small rivers going through that give us some much needed relief with a whole ton of cedars and cottonwoods. grin

Thanks for the geography lesson. I'm an I-80 visitor!
Posted By: djs Re: Artillery to fight wildfires? - 08/31/16
Originally Posted by kaywoodie
Must work. Thanks to artillery, after about 1915-16, they had no real forest fires in no mans land. wink


They also had no trees to burn either!!
Posted By: djs Re: Artillery to fight wildfires? - 08/31/16
Originally Posted by AcesNeights
I assume they are air burst rounds. Seems it would be a more effective dispersal method.


But the real question is, "Can they lay down a line of retardant?" A 155mm artillery shell (the largest in the US inventory) is only 6" in diameter. A retardant line must be about 100" wide and several hundred yards long. How many 155mm artillery shells would it take to do this? Keep in mind that water (and the water mixture in a chemical retardant) evaporates in the 3,000 degree heat of a forest fire!
© 24hourcampfire