Proposal to reactivate old MAFFS units
A California congressman has introduced legislation requiring that the eight old, first generation Modular Airborne FireFighting Systems (MAFFS), which can be used as needed in military C-130H aircraft to fight wildfires, be made available to units of the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve. The eight older MAFFS were replaced by nine second generation MAFFS II units within the last four years and the old units can’t be used in the more modern C-130J aircraft. The C-130Hs still in service are being targeted as potential air tankers by Representative Elton Gallegly from California who introduced the bill.
MAFFS air tankers are supposed to be activated only if all of the privately owned air tankers on federal contracts are committed. None of the eight military MAFFS have been used yet this year.
Currently eight of the nine new MAFFS II units are assigned and available to be used in C-130Js at bases in California, Wyoming, Colorado, and North Carolina. Representative Gallegly’s bill, H.R.5965, would require that the one spare MAFFS II and the eight first generation MAFFS that are in storage be made available and ready for activation if needed for wildfire suppression. That would increase the numbers of MAFFS air tankers to 17.
There is at least one obstacle that would have to be overcome in order to implement the Representative’s proposal. The military has indicated that they are not interested in expanding their role in suppressing wildfires. According to the Conference Chairman’s Report from the Aerial Firefighting Conference held in Washington, D.C. in 2011, Lt. Col. Bryan Allen of the Air National Guard said that given the nation’s operational tempo, he would not be comfortable with extending this role for what are essentially warfighting assets. And Clark R. Lystra of the Office of Secretary of Defense reported that an increase in the use of military assets to combat wildland fires had been rejected by the Department.
If you want to know more about the MAFFS II units, we covered the details in an article we wrote in 2009.
Restrict the use of air tankers from a foreign government
The proposed legislation has an additional requirement:
The Chief of the Forest Service may not procure air tankers to fight wildfires from a foreign government unless the Chief of the Forest Service certifies to Congress that MAFFS air tanker support available from units of the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve is being fully utilized or is not sufficient to address wildfires on National Forest System land.
On June 6 the U.S. Forest Service announced that that they had arranged to temporarily hire a CV-580 air tanker from the Canadian Interagency Forest Fire Centre. At that time the two DC-10 air tankers based in California that carry five times more retardant than the CV-580s were not hired. Then on June 11 the USFS announced that they had activated on a call when needed contract (CWN) one of the two American-based DC-10s and also borrowed three more Canadian CV-580s. The USFS currently does not have a contract with Evergreen’s American-based 747 air tanker that carries 10 times more retardant than a CV-580.
A Canadian-owned, UK-built air tanker is being used today on fires in the United States. Missoula-based Neptune Aviation is leasing a BAe-146 from Tronos, the Canadian company that converted the airliner into an air tanker. Neptune has been awarded a contract for two more BAe-146s and expects to bring them on later this year. Aero Flite of Kingman, Arizona was also awarded a contract recently, for one air tanker, and is partnering with Conair of Abbotsford, British Columbia to convert an RJ85, which is similar to a BAe-146.
Status of the proposed legislation
The bill has only been introduced and has seen no action other than being referred to the House Committee on Agriculture.
U.S. Rep. Elton Gallegly (R-CA) today added an amendment to the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2013, that would reactivate four first-generation Modular Airborne FireFighting System (MAFFS) units and add two new aerial dispersal units to the U.S. Forest Service’s firefighting arsenal.
http://www.house.gov/gallegly/media/media2012/071812maffs.htm
Gallegly’s amendment was added to the defense bill by unanimous consent. A final House vote on the entire bill is expected Friday. The bill will then be sent the Senate for its consideration.
Gallegly’s amendment today would partially implement his bill by activating four of the MAFFS 1 units.
Regarding angst that the two (I believe) air force tankers sat at Peterson undeployed with a crew that was ready to go, just awaiting Obama’s orders. That is what my sister believes. That this fire could have been put out sooner and these should have been deployed. Intuitively, I can’t believe that the president has to order every tanker. I believe he can if he is advised to do so. He surely trusts the experienced firefighters. In the first news conf on Sat the 23 the spokesperson for the firefighters said he didn’t think it necessary to deploy them until the two arrived from other fires?? At that time, he was first making a fireline to Eagles Nest and could do that without the tankers.
Denise, please tell your sister that the President does not dispatch air tankers to fires. That would be an incredible example of micromanaging. The National Interagency Fire Center and the U.S. Forest Service can make the decision to utilize an agreement worked out between the USFS and the military, and if all the civilian contracted air tankers are committed, they can mobilize up to eight military MAFFS C-130 air tankers.
Incident Commanders on fires decide if they need air tankers on their fire, and if so, they place a Request through dispatch channels. That is then converted to an Order by the dispatch chain of command and if air tankers are available, civilian or military, they will be dispatched to the fire.
The President does not dispatch air tankers. However, if he believes that the big picture of air tanker management is being mishandled, as it has been for the last 10 years with an 80 percent reduction in our air tanker fleet, then he has the ability, and even the responsibility, to step in and correct the situation, by a Come to Jesus meeting with the Secretary of Agriculture, the Chief of the Forest Service, or even the USFS’ Director of Fire and Aviation Management.
Thank heaven for the Canadian Convairs. I’ve been watching them coming and going over the hogback to High Park for almost two weeks now, and God only knows how much of a difference they have made.
Well Outside the Box…
USFS has been touting the MAFFS system and the related training as the next best thing to sliced and “the partnering up” of the USFS and USAF.
The idea that Congressman throwing the Feds under the bus is pure bunk…17+ years, six studies, 1 “secret” shows the rest of the US the inability of an organization to “get it together.”
Getting it together on a shoestring budget and entertaining industry with the likes of former USFS folks (Rey) at Lockheed and then trying having champagne taste on a beer budget to get this program on the right track, is like well, throwing everyone else under the budget due to someone’s inability to detect a problem or plan for a a disaster.
IF the USFS had a TRULY coherent strategy and not some coca mamie 12 page “strategy report” that some BS student in Forestry could put together….and then saying they are ready for any type of disaster….
Figure it out…..hopefully when the FMAG’s come out FEMA can get the money back from the USFS coffers for someone else’s disaster
Until then, the only ones being thrown under the bus is the US public, being thrown the bone that this is forestry management!!
While the ability to put more air tankers in the skies sounds great, you must take the MAFFS system with a grain of salt and realize that they must be utilized where they can be effective. Unlike the traditional fixed wing retardant loads, the MAFFS system delivers somewhat of a “light shower” of retardant, which quite often drifts for great lengths, or is unable to even penetrate the canopy in thicker fuels. DO NOT assume that a MAFFS aircraft will give you the same effectiveness as a P2V or the new BAE-146……unless the mission involves pretreatment or in light fuels–because the reality will be much different than what you would have expected. It is to bad now that this will give some congressmen more ammo to throw the FEDS under the bus for our current air tanker issue—-because the ground truth of the MAFFS system is pretty poor to say the least.
Let’s move away from treating the symptoms to treating the cause, ie the Fed and State’s mismanagement of the our forests on our taxpayer’s land. Stop hugging all the trees but show you really care by helping prevent these massive destructive fires. Let private companies clear cut for the logs and wood they get, fire breaks at critical points to contain before the fire starts. Let ranchers graze away the tinder dry grass and trample down the fire spreading underbrush in a managed way. Let local vetted volunteers help put out the fires when necessary to contain. Stop the policy that says nature knows best and that forests all need to burn sometime. Clean out the massive fuel located in wilderness areas where absolutely no motorized equipment may ever under any circumstance be used. Fire the Department Heads of very Agency that has been managing our forests as well as the politicians who have supported these failed policies. Re-train and indoctrinate all Forest management officials with the understanding that they are there to contain fires that will inevitably be started by some one or something at some time.
Wow. You sir are a prime example of an armchair IC, or perhaps an armchair Director- Don’t you recon’ that folks have looked at this and studied the long term impacts of your “suggestions”? Hmm…
WHY HASN’T THE MAFFS BEEN ACTIVATED? Legislation to double the number of MAFFS sitting in the warehouse. If I lived in Colorado I would be on someones “case”; that is if I had a house and phone that wasn’t consumned by one of these fires. In sixth grade we studied goverment. Unless I missed this on the gov. test Colorado should have a State goverment and two U.S. Senators plus some people called, (?) can’t remember, only see them during election years.
Thanks for clarifying Lt Col Allen. I am somewhat familiar with the enthusiasm that MFFS equiped units place on this mission, having been in the 731AS for number of years.
Given enough crew, airframe, and system availability; I think the ARC would eagerly put up additional MAFFS birds given the dire situation we currently find ourselves in. I am calling my representative, Mike Cauffman R-CO, and urging him to support HR 5965. I encourage others do the same.
Better source for that report:
http://www.fs.fed.us/fire/aviation/airtanker_modernization_strategy.pdf
Good reading.
Thanks jmn.
Bill,
Good article. I need to make a clarification, though.
As a MAFFS instructor pilot and deputy commander of the 146AEG-WFF (Air Expeditionary Group-Wildland Fire Fighting), I was asked to conduct a briefing on MAFFS and its use in Lockheed C-130 J-model aircraft at the Aerial Firefighting conference held last year in Washington, D.C.
During the briefing, I noted that the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense, for Homeland Defense and America’s Security Affairs (OASD HD/ASA) was responsible to the Secretary of Defense on making recommendations regarding the employment of military aircraft in a firefighting role. It is this office that is responsible for the comments you suggest I made.
The Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve have been conducting MAFFS operations quite successfully for over forty years, and are prepared to accept additional responsibility in this civil support role if authorized and appropriately resourced.
Judging by the results of several federally funded studies, the number of air tankers currently available under federal contract is far too low. Congressman Gallegly’s legislative effort seems a positive step toward ensuring America has an appropriate number of air tanker aircraft available to combat wildfire. The legislation does seem to favor employing American capabilities before seeking assistance from a foreign government (as is the current case with the tankers that are thankfully available from the Canadian government).
The citizen airmen of the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve perform MAFFS by applying skills developed over many years of flying low-level tactical formation airlift and airdrop missions. The MAFFS mission is an excellent example of leveraging the capabilities of the Guard and Reserve for the good of the nation.
Those of us that fly the mission realize its importance and are humbled by the ability and bravery of our commercial air tanker flight crew brethren. We are proud that the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve are able to provide MAFFS aerial firefighting capability when needed.
Your site is an excellent platform, one I check and rely on daily. Keep up the good work.
Blue skies,
-Bryan
Bryan K. Allen, Lt Col, CA ANG
146AW MAFFS Program Manager
what is the cost of a C-130 per hour with the ground crew?
According to this document – http://www.scribd.com/doc/93193162/U-S-Forest-Service-report-on-air-tanker-modernization – “Based on Air Force, aviation industry and Forest Service estimates, the C-130J flight cost is approximately $6,660 per flight hour and $13,740 per day for availability costs (2011 dollars); per day availability includes costs not associated with actual flight, such as pilots, facilities, depreciation, replacement costs, overhead and training.”
Who will support these systems with parts? Didn’t Aero Union put these systems up for auction earlier this year?