Why does US spurn Russia's fire-fighting aircraft?

[Andrew Jameson]

#6
MSNBC
August 9, 2000
Too proud to accept Russia's help
Why has U.S. spurned Russia's fire-fighting aircraft?
By Michael Moran
Michael Moran is senior producer for special projects at MSNBC.com and a
columnist on foreign affairs.

NEW YORK, Aug. 9 —  Two years ago, during a particularly bad year for
wildfires in Florida, I began getting e-mail from a reader who sensed a
scandal in the smoke-filled winds. As U.S. firefighters struggled with
blazes in 10 states, a Russian offer to lend the United States two of its
IL-76 tanker aircraft — by far the largest in the world — was spurned. But
now, with a new wildfire threatening unprecedented destruction, the United
States has snubbed Russia again. What, exactly, is going on?
     THE ILYUSHIN IL-76 is known to military and civilian aviation buffs as
the huge workhorse of Russian aviation. Since the early 1970s, the
four-engine jet has been the main Soviet/Russian military transport and a
major force in international cargo hauling since the USSR collapsed. But
it's also the largest firefighting weapon in the world. A single IL-76
tanker can drop 11,000 gallons of water in one trip - about four times as
much as the largest tanker in the U.S. arsenal, the C-130 Hercules. Ask any
firefighters who don't wear a tie to work and they'll tell you that's an
asset they want on their side.
    In May, when fires threatened the Los Alamos nuclear plant, Russia
again offered the IL-76 for the cause. The U.S. Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) considered the offer. But in the end, once again,
the United States said no. That's when several of my readers, again
outraged at what they perceived as America putting its pride over the
safety of its citizens, spammed me with mail about the Russian aircraft.

REGRETS? THEY'VE GOT A FEW
     With 4 million acres consumed already this year and more to burn, why
has the United States continued to say "Nyet?" It's a question I put to the
National Interagency Fire Center in Boise, Idaho, which is coordinating the
national firefighting effort.
     "The aircraft Russia is offering is new, and we don't understand its
technology or capabilities," said Pat Entwistle, a fire information
officer. "Also, they have non-English speaking crews and we haven't figured
out how to incorporate this plane into our system."
     Told that Russia has been offering this assistance for years,
Entwistle said: "In the past, we have never had a situation that exceeded
our capability to handle."
     Well, to me, "a situation that exceeds our capability to handle" is a
pretty good definition of what the Federal Emergency Management Agency
should be doing, no?
     Entwistle conceded the policy would probably be reviewed, but added
"now is not the time. We've got our hands full just dealing with the
fires." She also said that previous assessments of the plane had found it
"incompatible" with U.S. methods, though she failed to explain exactly how.

MISSED OPPORTUNITIES
     There certainly was ample time to learn how to use this exotic "new"
Russian technology whereby a gigantic plane that first flew in 1974 drops
water on a fire. Russia first made the IL-76 available to the U.S. in 1996.
It tried again during the big Western blazes of '97 and throughout
Florida's debacle in 1998.
     The most recent cold shoulder turned to Russia came back in May, when
the Los Alamos plant was evacuated. "We appreciate the goodwill ...," FEMA
emergency analyst David Passey told the Albuquerque Journal. "But we
haven't had a request for more aircraft and the Forest Service doesn't
appear to need them."
     Privately, several sources in the Forest Service and the Agriculture
Department described a "minor debate" within their ranks over the
usefulness of the aircraft. These sources - all of whom, incidentally,
support using the big jet - said the official line rejecting the offer
rests on the idea that a jet moves too quickly to drop water on downhill
slopes. While this may be true, it ignores the usefulness of dropping such
enormous quantities of water on uphill slopes (which, after all, simply
entails approaching the mountain from the other direction) or on level land
to help create firebreaks.

SWORDS TO PLOWSHARES?
     Back in Russia, the Ministry of Emergency Situations understandably is
flabbergasted at all this. After years of being told their help is
unwanted, the Russians are beginning to sense something more than the
prickly pride of the U.S. Forest Service at work.
     "Fear of competition," is how Sergei Shoigu, who heads Russia's
version of FEMA, described the reticent American response.*
     It's not as though Moscow is offering to sell missiles to Cuba, after
all. Even if they are a bit loopy in suspecting that America fears
competition in the (non-existent) firefighting tanker market, it's not
difficult to see why this kind of reaction contributes to international
misunderstandings.

ULTERIOR MOTIVES
     Certainly, Ilyushin, makers of the IL-76, have more than humanitarian
action on their minds. Like all of the great weapons makers of the former
Soviet Union, Ilyushin has struggled to find new markets after its captive
market of satellite and toady states collapsed. But unlike many of its
Soviet sister firms, Ilyushin made something useful in peacetime: the
IL-76. Helping former Soviet industry develop into civilian corporations is
standard State Department boilerplate. Yet in this instance, where a need
exists and a supplier readily available, American bureaucracy gets in the way.
     Tom Robinson, a Florida-based firefighting consultant, has made the
cause of the IL-76 as something of a personal crusade. Robinson represents
Global Emergency Response (GER), a government and industry consortium of
U.S., Canadian and Russian agencies that has tried for years to get the
Russian aircraft onto American radar. He's hardly a disinterested party -
over the years he's become something of a zealot on the jet's behalf - but
he's got a point when he asserts that this issue has been grossly mismanaged.
     Robinson thinks this resistance comes down to pure inertia.
     "Like any federal agency, they don't want to change," Robinson told
me. "They're comfortable using small planes and a group of private
contractors. Now they have to adjust and they don't like it."
     How many homes does it take to change U.S. Forest Service policy? How
many thousands of firefighters - American, Canadian or Mexican - should be
put at risk for the sake of a somewhat suspect ruling about this "new
technology?"
     Don't tell me about it. Tell the Forest Service. The guys fighting the
fires.

*******


Andrew Jameson
Chair, Russian Committee, ALL
Languages and Professional Development
1 Brook Street, Lancaster LA1 1SL UK
Tel: 01524 32371  (+44 1524 32371)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Use your web browser to search the archives, control your subscription
  options, and more.  Visit and bookmark the SEELANGS Web Interface at:
                http://members.home.net/lists/seelangs/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------