Tanker 118, during training flights at Ramona, CA February, 2022. Photo by Ryan Grothe.In an interview this week with CBS Bay Area, Joe Tyler, the new Director of the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, said the seven C-130s that are being transferred from the US Coast Guard to CAL FIRE will go to Georgia this year to have the 4,000-gallon retardant tanks installed.
CAL FIRE Director Joe Tyler making the keynote address at the Aerial Firefighting conference in San Diego, March 22, 2022. Photo by Bill Gabbert.During Mr. Tyler’s first interview after becoming Director March 4, he told Fire Aviation two weeks later that it looked like the incorporation of the C-130s into their fleet might be pushed back to 2024 due the pandemic/endemic and supply chain issues. This was in spite of the agency’s efforts in attempting to facilitate movement of the project. In the CBS interview this week he generally confirmed the 2024 timeline, but also maintained hope that one or more would be in service before 2024.
Below is the CBS Bay Area interview with Mr. Tyler.
The U.S. Air Force was directed by Congress in December 2013 to perform maintenance on the seven aircraft and convert them to air tankers. At that time they were given $130 million for the project. In 2018 Congress appropriated an additional $20 million, bringing the total cost to $150 million. It has now been 3,066 days since the process started.
9 Comments
Who’s tanking the planes in Georgia?
Military?
The aircraft’s manufacturer, Lockheed Martin, is in Georgia.
Here’s what we wrote in 2019:
It looks like the location of the work has changed.
So…. In the past eight years, they’ve spent over $21 million per tanker ($150m over 7 planes) and they don’t even have a tank installed yet.
So much for a “free” airtanker.
I’m curious about the average cost per tanker in the private sector. I don’t know the specifics but I’ve heard the average cost of acquisition and conversions is roughly $6-$7m per tanker.
If these free C-130’s are this much to convert, how much are they going to cost to operate?!?
We don’t know how much of that $150 million has been spent.
Phil
Good points…especially the free thing…whoever started idea on the land management agencies started that tale probably ought to do something like stay at a desk.
Maybe ask local ANG folks or AD folks what it truly costs to operate it or even Lockheed.
I’m venturing to guess CalFire is still trying to figure out. But asking any land management agency would be a more costly mistake..
We may not know how much has spent so far, but free certainly is a word I’d be using in the aviation, the hangar or shop offices that put an aircraft in the return to service after many a modification
I would like you to have my horse (free). It doesn’t eat too much. It will need a barn to live in, monthly hoofs trimmed, probably a few vet bills along the way and if you want to take it off the ranch you will need a pickup truck and trailer. What is the going price for a tanked 737, about thirty million? An airtanker with only a crew of two and travels at the speed of ……..I guess it’s too late to turn back for Cal Fire. Maybe rethink the C130 program, proceed with two new wing boxed C 130’s in service and then move toward purchase of the ATR 42 or 737 ready to go off the “show room floor”. Maybe they could a trade-in allowance for the other five? Congress has already set aside the 150 or more million for this project so only time (probably about 2025) the first two tankers may be in service, maybe.
When it comes to government, there is no such thing as a free lunch.
What of tankers 116 and 118?
Are they included in this mix?
I’ve seen them many times in past years flying out of McClellan in USFS colours.
Comments are closed for this article!