2 Military air tankers activated for California fires

MAFFS 7
MAFFS 7, from the North Carolina Air National Guard’s 145th Airlift Wing. Department of Defense file photo.

On Friday the Governor of California activated two California National Guard C-130 aircraft from the 146th Airlift Wing to serve as air tankers in the fight against the wildfires burning in the state. Governor Edmund G. Brown responded to a request from Cal EMA and CAL FIRE to utilize the capabilities of the Modular Airborne FireFighting Systems (MAFFS) which can be loaded into the cargo hold of the C-130s enabling them to drop up to 3,000 gallons of retardant on wildfires.

The state also authorized Channel Islands Air National Guard Station (CIANGS) in Port Hueneme where the C-130s are stationed, to be used as a retardant reload base for civilian and military aircraft working the fires in Callifornia, allowing shorter turn around times for those working the Springs fire about five miles away, which grew to 28,000 acres on Friday. CAL FIRE employees are working with Air National Guard members to get the tanker base operations up and running.

The interagency agreement between the U.S. Forest Service and the Department of Defense requires that MAFFS be operational within 48 hours. However they usually have responded within 36 hours of the initial request. If that holds true this time, the California MAFFS may be available to fight fires by late in the day on Saturday, or more likely, on Sunday.

There are six other military MAFFS air tankers that have not yet been activated, stationed in Colorado, Wyoming, and North Carolina. One from North Carolina, MAFFS #7, crashed in South Dakota in 2012, killing four and injuring two.

The four MAFFS from Wyoming and North Carolina are scheduled to conduct their joint annual training and recertification next week in Cheyenne, Wyoming. The two aircraft units in Colorado held theirs a couple of weeks ago.

Californians are dealing with the effects of a very dry winter which has left the forests and brushlands with live fuel moistures that are typically only seen late in the summer. Multiple fires have broken out across the state in the last few days. Most have been kept to less than a couple of hundred acres due to aggressive initial attacks by firefighters in the air and on the ground, but at least three have burned about 3,000 acres or more.

Another airborne weapon will join the fire fight on Saturday, a DC-10 air tanker that carries 11,600 gallons of retardant.

Typos, let us know HERE, and specify which article. Please read the commenting rules before you post a comment.

Author: Bill Gabbert

After working full time in wildland fire for 33 years, he continues to learn, and strives to be a Student of Fire.

12 thoughts on “2 Military air tankers activated for California fires”

  1. Jack

    Good Evening!!

    You got a source for that info….just wondering..

    Last I saw for some USAF ops….the cost were approaching $5,000 USD per flight hour, but I have been wrong before…..

    0
    0
  2. The “military takeover” has not happened. This incident highlights the fact that USDA has not gotten their gear together and solidified their contracts.

    CalFire’s S-2T were all committed statewide between Riverside County and Butte County, and the P-2V’s from Neptune were also in the fight. The Convair’s and CL-425’s have not come down from our neighbors to the north. Now, knowing all the intel, vice shooting orally from the hip, the MAFFS C-130’s from Channel Islands AB (NEXT TO THE FIRE) are a slam dunk to get support to the ground.

    It has been stated by NIFC that the MAFFS are a “surge force” to fill in the gaps when all CIVAIR has been committed. This is clearly stated in the MOU/MOA between the Marine Corps and CalFire in San Diego.

    0
    0
    1. I understand CA has to reimburse DOD for use of the C-130’s and the US Forrest Service for the use of MAFFS II. Does anyone know what these average costs are in an response (per hour/per sortie) to a request for fire fighting support?

      0
      0
      1. Jack, in 2011 the taxpayers, through the USFS, paid a total of $8,779,279 for MAFFS operations. That year they delivered 1,184,423 gallons, for a delivered cost of $7.41 per gallon, and I believe that does not include the cost of the retardant, which would add another $2.00 or so per gallon. They flew 517 sorties at an average cost of $16,981 per sortie. The average number of gallons per sortie was 2,290.

        The cost of retardant on the Fourmile fire in Colorado in September, 2010 was $1.97/gal.

        0
        0
  3. What ever happened to the Forest Service fixed-wing air tanker program? As I watched the DC-10 put the “final touch” on a new evolving, community threatening 400 acre fire in So. Cal. what part of immediate need is so hard to understand by politicians? Here is a fact: a two hundred acre fire cost less to contain than a 20,000 acre fire. (unless it is on the BLM) the cost is about the same.

    0
    0
  4. That would be the Economy Act of 1932 or a variant thereof….

    Now I would imagine and not to slight the AT industry whatsoever……

    The Governors of some States are probably pretty well tired of the hype of “Interagency Cooperation” that has been hyped so often from the “inventors of the ICS system” and I mean the folks who have been publicly and statutorily charged with managing the lands……and they realize also that the LAT program in its current form, has a very long way to go, as far as improvements at the Federal level, that this is their route and modus operandi for awhile.

    Guys… I have been a defender of the LAT industry.. every since I was a punk reading Aviation Week and Space Technology in the 1980’s and how the USFS was “looking forward of the F7F and B17 era”…….and to realize 30 years later with the 1995 studies and the waste of resources on the RAND study and the “looking forward of the C130.and P3 era and to want a C130J and folks pushing the C27J issue……you really do get what you pay for when the elected, SES, GM, and other various “leadership” say they get it and are doing something about it…….

    The folks who really doing something about this whole problem…..is the industry and the Governors who really have no other choice in some of the matters, who need to go ahead and tag the USAFRes and ANG for their assets in order to cover the existing lack of forward movement of solicitation of contracts
    IT is a sad state of affairs….but the leadership in DC says “we gots it covered for the fire season!”

    We will see….if the LMA’s and Congress REALLY respect the airtanker industry and its personnel….talk is cheap

    0
    0
    1. It is truly amazing that the USDA/USFS has stalled on the C-27’s. Basically a brand new airframe (10 y/old) with no major usage not being hustled into the fight. And a freebie to boot.

      0
      0
  5. Gee, What is the name of the LAW that says military resources will be called up only after civilian resources are taxed beyond their capabilities? The military take over has happened even though the military has publically stated they do not want the job. I know of dozens of former tanker drivers who would come back to the industry IFF there were actual physical planes to fly.

    0
    0
    1. Now I could be wrong but seeing as how the state activated the MAFFS I do not believe the law applies. The LATs are not on a state contract. I was given the following information about 6 years ago but I believe it is still correct. I asked about MAFFS activations and the fact that all civilian air tankers had to all be committed to fires. The response I was given was as follows “If it is a federal activation i.e. Forest Service or BLM all civilian air tankers must be committed to fires. If it is a state activation i.e. CDF, all civilian air tankers do not have to be committed to fires because of the fact that the LAT fleet is on a federal contract.” That information was given to me by a capt from the 146th AW at NAS Point Mugu during an airshow.

      0
      0
      1. With respect to C-130 activation and the law, specifically the Federal Economy Act of 1933: The Economy Act specifies that the government cannot compete with civil businesses.

        There are two different types of commands operating C-130’s. Air National Guard units and US Air Force Reserve units. The Air Force reserve units are government forces that operate under the DoD. The National Guard is not considered a federal unit unless activated by the Department of Defense. Individual State guard units are not subject to the Economy Act constraints when activated by their respective states.

        In this situation, the C-130’s are considered California State aircraft.

        0
        0
  6. A minor quibble about your otherwise excellent post. The current governor of California is Edmund G. Brown Jr. Edmund Sr. was his father and served as governor of California from 1958 to 1966.

    0
    0

Comments are closed.