MAFFS 8 at Sacramento McClellan Airport August 8, 2021. Photo by Mike McKeig.It looked like it was not going to happen, but the eighth military C-130 Modular Airborne FireFighting System (MAFFS) has been activated. On August 9 five were working. The last three were added (approximate dates) on August 10 (Colorado Air Force Reserve), August 23 (Wyoming Air National Guard), and August 26 (California Air National Guard). For now they are all based at Sacramento McClellan Airport. It is the first time all eight aircraft in the MAFFS program have been activated since a series of large wildfires in Colorado in 2012.
Only eight MAFFS roll-in systems exist in the United States. They can enable an only slightly modified military C-130 to spray up to 3,000 gallons of fire retardant using equipment powered by compressed air. Their role is to assist with fighting wildland fires when needed to supplement the privately owned large air tankers under contract to the federal government.
The multi-year drought has led to very low fuel moistures in the west, and even in Minnesota. Historically low in some areas. Very low fuel moistures can result in extreme fire behavior at times even when the weather is not necessarily extreme. The resistance to control is greatly elevated when fuels ignite so easily.
On July 14 the National Interagency Fire Center upgraded the Preparedness Level to 5, which was the earliest date in 10 years. Today 15 Type 2 Incident Management Teams and all but two of the available Type 1 Incident Management Teams are committed. An Area Command Team has been activated, something that rarely happens, and nearly 27,000 personnel are assigned to wildfires. The National Multi-Agency Coordinating Group (NMAC) decreed on July 18 that all requests for Area Command, National Incident Management Organization (NIMO), Type 1, and Type 2 IMTs must be approved by them, an action that has not occurred in recent memory. There are 76 large uncontained fires being fully suppressed in the United States, and another 31 are being managed rather than suppressed.
In May the Forest Service, the agency responsible for contracting for large air tankers (LAT), said they would have 34 if needed — 18 on Exclusive Use Contracts guaranteed to work, plus 8 “surge” LATs guaranteed to work for a shorter period of time, and another 8 on Call When Needed (CWN) status. Of those 16 surge and CWN aircraft, only 5 could be produced in July. One LAT, a 737 owned by the New South Wales Rural Fire Service in Australia, has flown across the Pacific to lend a hand. No more are available.
The issue of a shortage of air tankers came up when President Biden met virtually with the Western Governors July 30 to talk about the wildfire situation. Several of them asked the President for aerial assets, firefighters, help in obtaining aviation fuel, and aggressive initial attack. California Governor Gavin Newsom was adamant about needing more air tankers.
“We have four DC-10s, Mr. President, four,” Governor Newsom said. “Now, DC-10s aren’t the answer to every problem …They have restrictions; there are legendary restrictions. But the reality is there is four for the country, and we’re competing. They’re all contracted. We compete with you. We compete with other states. We don’t even have access right now to DC-10s. We lost that 747 — that iconic 747 — that now has been converted to a cargo plane.”
California had the 747 on a CWN contract when the company went out of business. If they had activated it, the aircraft would be flying fires today.
On August 4 Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said the Governors’ request for additional aviation resources, “… Came to my desk. One of the challenges we’re working on right now is making sure we get the Defense Department personnel necessary to fly the planes. So sometimes it’s not even the planes, it’s the pilots, the people who know how to fly these planes…I was given instructions to… make sure we have the people in the planes to fly them.”
The Secretary was most likely referring to the MAFFS.
Here is a tweet we sent August 23 soon after the seventh MAFFS was activated. It featured a file photo of MAFFS 4 from the California Air National Guard that was still parked at that time.
Seven of the eight military C-130J aircraft equipped with Modular Airborne FireFighting Systems (MAFFS) which convert them to air tankers have been activated. The California Air Nat’l Guard, 146th Air Wing, still has one parked on the tarmac. pic.twitter.com/ZBg8K1Jbj0
— Fire Aviation (@FireAviation) August 23, 2021
42 Comments
It doesn’t matter how many planes you have if you don’t have enough aerial supervision. These things are parked on the ramp without ATGS and ASM’s. Keep paying ATGS’s at the GS9 level, and single staffing the platforms, and you’re going to keep losing them at ever increasing rates.
Meanwhile, read FIRE AVIATION’S last about “Boxes of water dropped on a fire in Israel” . . . and try those out soon on this new active . . . !
ATGS and Lead Pilots should be paid comparable to Tanker Pilots for retention and recruitment. After all some do it for the experience/flight time, then jump ship for higher pay.
Right there…what are they doing to recruit and retain?
Any examples?
True for the entire aviation industry.
Like I said once before what is the Agency doing for recruiting and retention?
Thought this was a well known fact…pay, QOL, and mobility
Pilots and mechanics….near leaders in transient lifestyles
Shame on California for letting the 747 slip away. Drought, past recent fire history (Paradise, Creek) the signs were there for a disastrous fire season. Shouldn’t have worried about the Feds certification.
MAFF, enough has already been said in past posts on this site about the performance of the suppression units installed in the C 130’s. Here is my feelings; redirect two MAFF system to be installed side by side in the C 17 aircraft. Discharge nozzles to be determined, aft or side. The MAFF suppression systems are already in inventory and being used. No need to reinvent (years out) a new system. Now you have a “tanker” that carries a nominal five thousand gallons of retardant and discharges enough retardant to increase coverage levels on the ground to be effective in heavy fuels. Sequent release of one modular at at time will allow for twice the coverage distance in grass and light brush. It has to be someone in Federal service IDEA to make this proposal and accomplish the change. (heard it here on this site first)
Bravo Zulu! House fires no no season, so always FD’s on call. Wildfire ‘season’? Who/what is ready at the ramp?
Nice idea, if you can get a C-17, much less 8 of them, for fire mission tanker role.
The older C-17’s (due to multiple flight hours) are being handed off to reserve units while the C-17’s on the front lines are being used on missions judiciously to make them last. After all, they were manufactured to haul cargo and troops just like the C-5. And boy howdy, both are always busy hauling cargo and people world wide.
After the C-17 fleet reaches max flight hours they will be retired and there is, so far, no replacement.
They should revive the A-10 Warthog/Thunderbolt II initial attack airtanker concept!
This is deja vu all over again! (With all due respect to Yogi Berra). This A-10 tanker dream is a couple of decades old.
The A-10 Thunderbolt II/Warthog/Hog was built as a close air support aircraft. It was built around that GAU 8 30mm gun and built for survivability ie. plutonium tub the pilot sits in and the two engines on the back of the fuselage.
As a tanker you would have to remove that 30mm gun system and the plutonium tub, the bird would then wind up sitting on it tail with its nose point up past the horizon! Don’t believe me? Check out that Russian bomber with the engines way back, waaay back on the plane.
Yeah, I know what yer sayin’. Put the retardant tank and system in the nose in place of the tub and gun. So how would that tankerhog fly with empty tanks? NO BUENO SEEEEEN YORE. The CG prevents this bird being a tanker.
The A 10 has a MTOW of around 50k. Depending on the combat mission 30K to 47 K is the norm.
Still, 3ooo to 4000+ gallons as a tanker would have been nice dream. But that GC issue is a nightmare.
Good write up. But you meant titanium tub.
Thanks!
How about S-3A Viking conversation to an air tanker? Low & slow like the P-3 or the SP2H?
Johnny:
Check the specs on the S-3. What is the required take off length for a runway?
How many local airports have that footage? Then consider the MTOW. How many gallons of retardant can the Fire Viking hold? That little?
The S-3 wasn’t nicked named the Hoover for nuttin! FOD sucks literally and figuratively. Then ya gotcher brake issues.
Calfire did a study on the S3 a number of years ago. I think there are a few articles on this site as well. Interesting concept but there were significant engineering challenges if memory serves.
They should revive the A-10 Warthog/Thunderbolt II initial attack airtanker concept!
Oh please, not again.
What we need is the USAF to get off of their butts and do the contracted repairs on the CalFire C-130s like they should’ve done last year. This needs to be happening now so we can have them for next year. We are in a new era. Fire season has no end in California anymore. There is no down time anymore. By the time it’s wrapped up, certification and training begins for the next “season”. Things need to be done simultaneously if they’re going to get done.
You are right, they need to get RAADS installed in 3, C-130’s at McClellan and need to get USAF to replace Center Wing Box and on other 4 aircraft. It has only been 5+ years since this process started.
It’s been nearly eight years since the process started.
https://fireaviation.com/2013/12/20/defense-bill-passes-clearing-way-for-c-130h-transfers-to-the-usfs/
I don’t know what I was thinking? Forty-one years of using the same MAFF concept (yawn)? Why should anything change; regardless if it provides the bang for the buck? There will always be a military excuse why the C 17 isn’t available for fire mission, until a senator lights-the-fire. Most of the C 130’s flying on fires are older than the crews flying them. The private sector has always produced the innovative thinking in aerial fire fighting, i.e Coulson after sunset delivery of water/retardant, VLATs DC 10 and the departed 747.
The 152nd Air Wing flies the C 130J.
The 153rd Air Wing flies the C130H.
The 146th Air Wing flies the C130J.
The 302nd Air Wing flies the C130H.
These are the units that fly the MAFFS.
How old are the Coulson C-130s? Certainly not J models.
Bill: I stand corrected. How about we just say Heavy metal!
Correction: I kicked the numbers/letters on the last post.
152nd flies the H model
153rd flies the H model
Politicians are attempting to get the H models replaced for one of the above Air Wings.
146th flies the J model
302nd flies the J model
152d, 153d, and 302d AWs all fly C-130H.
146AW is the only MAFFS wing with J’s.
I stand corrected.
302nd Airlift Wing is currently flying the H model. They might be currently working out of McClellan.
The 302nd Airlift Wing will take delivery of the J model sometime in 2023 according to HQ Air Force Reserve Command.
At least five C-17’s had already rolled off the assembly line before ANY of the C-130’s currently in use for MAFFS were built. These Hercs aren’t as old as you think.
While we’re on the subject, putting MAFFS on a C-17 isn’t as simple as loading the tanks and handing the crew a launch order. The amount of engineering and flight test that would be required to certify it would be extremely impractical. You might as well design and build an all-new system and put it on an airplane that’s in far less demand than the Air Force’s darling strategic airlifter.
It is a darling…just like the 130….doin some fancy lifting these days
Quite possibly the reason those 7 NDAA 2014 birds haven’t quite made it out of CWB check…
More important C130 Depot level work going on these daze…..maybe somebody can contract Coulson to get on those CWB inspections and replacements….if the AF and even grant that authority
While employed by Aero Union of Chico, Ca. There was several concept aircraft and tank modifications that were on going in the late ’70 and early ’80s. The S 3 Viking was being looked at as an tanker. As mentioned by Mr. Tommy D. all these factors and the inability to take off with a full load of retardant from several of Cal Fire foothill bases was its demise. Another Aero Union (concept) modification with an external tank (1000 gallon) was a DC 3, converted by Basler Company, now designated BT 67. There is a picture of such aircraft dropping retardant overseas operated by Royal Indonesia military? Johnny H. the A 10 has really been beat into submission. Aero Union had several concept drawing on the development office wall. Engineering did take a good look at this project. Results above.
ConAirs Q-400-AT looks like the cats meow. 2,700 US gallons, new airframes, with only two engines, capable of operating at most GA airports.
A Basler BT-67 (Converted/Modified (restomod?) and made new D 3) runs about four million dollars.
You do have a DC 3 to send to Basler don’t you? No? Well then, add in the cost of buying a decent DC 3 and shipping it to the Basler folks in Oshkosh.
The cruise speed is 176 knots. Based on an average of 450 flight hours one hour of flying will cost about 2000 dollars. Those numbers are from My Aircraft Cost and are 2021 figures.
You have to decide if the cost of the aircraft, and operating costs, are both worth it for 1000 gallons of the red/wet stuff.
Good points, Tom. After watching and helping a few mechs back in the 1980’s and some of the levels of work during the recip to turbine transition at Fedex……………
The ideas of A10s and S3s and those cost will boggle the mind …I’m surprised many here haven’t adopted those thoughts already with the coined “Next Generation” airtankers and what IT costs to operate and maintain those regional LATs and VLAT for each fire season… Simply thinking it can come out of AMARG or finding them from different airlines and slapping MAFFS/ tanking anything one would like and thinking that you’d have 20 airtankers in the next fire seasons seems a little off track.
Welcome to aviation …………the days of delivering mud at $500/ per hour are looooong over!!!!
Agree….I thought it would be a great platform years ago…..kudo’s to Conair for getting it done.
Sure would like to hear some 1st hand reports from some air attacks or leads on how the Q400 is performing. State of Alaska had one on contract this past summer…..cmon guys…give us some feedback
Say……I know a guy who knows a guy who can get you a heck of a deal on a slightly used C 130J. How many ya need? Got about 14 birds on the lot. Take delivery in about a year or so.
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/uk-defence-command-paper-raf-to-axe-c-130-fleet-early#:~:text=The%20UK%20Royal%20Air%20Force%20%28RAF%29%20is%20to,the%20type%20having%20been%20prematurely%20withdrawn%20from%20service.
I worked with the Q-400’s this year as an Air Attack Officer. We had an additional Q added to our group so we were often rolling out to incidents with 2 of them. T541 and T542.
They are fast on long distance missions. Relatively quick out of the retardant pits. Drops are similar to Convair 580’s as I believe they share a similar tank. Drops using the whole tank at lighter coverage levels, in strong winds, risk being blown apart (no different than other aircraft). Max drops are front end loaded and provide a bit more width. Good overall drops with a consistent drop pattern.
Aircraft performance is solid. Able to maintain bomb speed on downhill runs, good climb post drop, and the avionics are a vast improvement when compared to the legacy aircraft. I am sure the climate control and pressurization will reduce pilot fatigue over the long term.
Fuel supply challenges have been eluded to in some areas of the industry. The Q-400 uses quite a bit less fuel than legacy aircraft. Operationally this translates into less time taking on fuel. I was happily surprised to not notice excess fuel stops during long support missions.
Very little down time, or unserviceability, which one would expect with newer aircraft. But the fact that these are still in production with plenty of support make this a solid long term fleet addition.
Overall a good airtanker that suits British Columbia’s terrain, response area, and aviation infrastructure. I certainly put it through its paces in some challenging terrain and conditions this year.
Here’s a lil article
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2021/08/30/after-afghanistan-evacuation-mission-uk-air-force-still-not-reexamining-plans-to-retire-c-130/
Maybe there’s more hope….MAYBE the Brits are newer 130
We can only hope
The Blue Angels are flying an Ex-RAF C-130J as Fat Albert. Spent a year in the shop to get to US standards. Must have been one heck of a sale!
About 13-14 of those soon-to-be-gone UK C130J’s will be going on sale. Getcher bids in now. You don’t suppose that Coulson will be……naaaaaaah.
Welp
Somebody will buy them and J’s are the rage in some circles
Well hell, may be some one could get some H&P, T&G, Lynden Air Cargo , etc knowledge and form a C130 co-op
You know some of the oldies that had a C130 background…. But hey Coulson has its poop in a group
Yep, get yur bids in
Air Attack in British Columbia.
Spent a few weeks with the Q-400 group this season.
The planes are fast. Longer dispatches, over 100nm, and you notice the increased speed capability. On long base changes the Q will pass us in the TC-1000.
Drops in the lighter coverage levels are a bit narrow, similar to the Convair 580, with the Max drops having a bit more front end loading and wider footprint. Caution using lighter coverage levels in high crosswinds, they will blow apart, but that can be said about most light drops. Overall a nice consistent drop.
I had some concern with the Q-400’s ability to maintain bomb speed on downhill runs but it proved to be a non-issue. Mission duration was also a question, in compared to the Electra, but the Q’s held their own. Excellent climb rate post drop.
The biggest improvements are crew safety with the new avionics when compared to the Convair or Electra. Give these guys a few years with these aircraft and they will have them dialed in.
Overall pretty happy with the Q-400. They can utilize all of our existing tanker bases, have a long life ahead of them, and provide us some good bang for the buck. They also burn less fuel than some of the larger tankers. I put together a video that has a few Q-400 drops in it, Aerial Wildfire Operations, on YT if anyone is interested.
Thanks Troy,
Good, solid–1st hand info–something we don’t get a lot of here on the web. You mentioned the q-400 is fast….how fast? I thought I saw 370 knots somewhere ?
Where are you based out of ? Is Jeff still doing air attack out of Williams lake?
Cheers
I believe 370 knots is the advertised speed. Making the Q and the RJ the fastest planes in the fleet. I think the RJ is similar at 380 but not 100% on that.
Jeff is still holding down the Fort in YWL. I am in YKA after spending a few years in YXS.
It took a few weeks of continuous digging but here’s the scoop, and possibly why those C-130’s are not on line in California. I suppose that the Air Force depot will get to those planes when they have some free time and that may not be for a while. An in-state politician’s staff told me that the Cal Fire C-130 delay was, in part, caused by the pandemic. Oh sure. That accounts for a year of two of the seven year delay.
And by-the-way, this data comes from Air Force articles and an Aviation Today article that were published 1 to 4 years back.
The 153RD Airlift wing has upgraded C-130H models. Classic car rebuilders would call this a restomod. Just like new! How many upgraded C 130H’s does the 153rd have? I dunno. Article did not say but the Stars wants the C-130H to keep flying 10-20 more years.
The Air Force decided to do the following upgrades to the C-130H (176 Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard planes but those are 2017 numbers):
New wing boxes (as soon as those air frames time out on max flight hours/stress levels)
Glass cockpits with numerous avionics upgrades
Electronic Prop Control System (vs original hydraulic controls of the 50’s) with new more prop blades
Engine upgrades? It was mentioned but not for certain.
If anyone notes I’ve got something wrong, you won’t hurt my feelings with corrections!
Great run down
Like the A10 and B52….the USAF sees validity in keeping aircraft around
Land Management agencies are just going to have to get used to the idea that these aircraft are NOT FEPP type aircraft as of yet and be lucky all seven are in the air by 2026
Folks got too excited over the NDAA 2014 and all the red tape and CWB delays
What were these folks expecting? The rest of military types and mechanics saw this coming awhile ago. What did the forestry and fire world expect? To be first in line?
Alot of us waited in line for many years in the military, you are now seeing what years looked like to the rest of us
LOL
Pretty good run down.
The Air Force’s responsibility is combat readiness and their depots are at max capacity maintaining combat-coded aircraft. As much as we would like to see the Air Force finish those CalFire C-130’s faster, the hard truth is that firefighting is no more a priority for the Air Force than running a homeless shelter. They’ll get done when the Depots can squeeze them in. If you want to lay blame for the extreme delay in getting those airplanes flying fires, don’t put it on the Air Force, blame Congress for going cheap instead of appropriating money to send those 7 tails to one of the MANY commercial MRO’s around the world. Those tails would all have multiple seasons on the line by now if they had.
As for the ANG & Reserve C-130’s, the 152d, 153d, and 302d Airlift Wings have all started receiving upgrades to their props and engines and each are in different stages of completion of that effort. Avionics upgrades are on the horizon, but that is a 30+ year promise that has yet to be fulfilled. I’ll believe it when the whole fleet is finished with the modifications and the tails are flying real missions.
My man!!!
Comments are closed for this article!