I've been saying for at least year or two on social media that Canada should create a civilian 'Fire Guard' organization, with water bombers, smokejumpers, etc. and use it to assist provinces during wildfire season. Let's be honest, wildfire season is getting longer and burning more and more forest. The top worst years for amount of land burned by wildfires have all been in the past 50 years (since 1979), and 2023, 2024, and 2025 are all in that top 10. With 2.7 million hectares burned already this year, 2026 will be added to the list.
The bonus is that we could use the 'Fire Guard' to assist countries in the southern hemisphere (Australia, Brazil, South Africa, etc.) or even US states like California, with their fire seasons during the winter months, meaning the assets and personnel aren't idle for six months of the year.
I appreciate the analysis of the Air options -- none are great, but some are less bad than others. Canada's current problem is that the US is getting smoke driven by natural winds from, principally, NW Ontario. I think the problem is actually much larger than this and we need to step back. Consider Wildfires suffer at least two basic truisms:
1. Forests *inevitably* burn, the question is not if, but how large.
2. Climate change makes these fires more likely, more frequent and more aggressive.
With the corollary that "every fire we beat now is just another fire waiting to happen later".
So the job is *not* preventing forest fires, but controlling how, when, and under what conditions. In US terms: its not about smoke, but how bad, and when.
This is a bigger question than 'how to fight a large fire'. Like Northern Situational awareness, the solution is more than just hardware, but a WoG approach to the problem comprising policy, organization, funding, and personnel.
I agree with Jamie Friesen: a Fire Guard (or maybe Land Guard - equiv to the Coast Guard) with responsibility for domestic First Response to natural land disasters, and SAR, roles currently shared by local police, fire, provinces, and CAF. Failing that, a standards and grants program to support/expand provincial First Responders for training/equipment, possibly backed by National Service (if that comes to pass).
So while more aircraft are part of the mix, many questions remain: Who are the fire fighting (air and surface) forces? Who's in charge (monitoring, prioritizing, planning)? How are they funded/based/trained? What is the objective? These questions are great, but we have to walk and chew gum -- we can't wait for answers.
Of course, Ottawa and the Provinces, ever mindful of money and power, will probably default to a committee or coordinating group. Sigh.
Feels like we're always aiming for a small change hoping to make a larger impact. Avoiding fixing our retention is why we keep dismissing good ideas "because we dont have enough people for xyz". No combo of reorganization, shuffling or crown corp is gonna dig another fire trench. Retain and attract more people, and by the time our first airframe lands at a CFB in 10 years, we should have a crew ready. Anything short of that is accepting that we dont care enough to fix this sustainably.
If Canada had zero wildfire firefighting capacity and someone proposed setting up the systems and structures we currently have, someone could just as accurately say that once we did, "these fires would largely be going the exact same".
Except that's not really true. We do put out fires early that would otherwise grow into conflagrations. And the differences we make on the margins of the fires that become big protect people and property. They matter.
Doubling or tripling resources would increase these impacts. There will still be large fires, and people will focus much more on the fires that continue to happen rather than the ones that don't. But this isn't a zero impact investment.
When a fire is found early, within an hour of it starting, yes it can often be managed.
When there is road access to areas, yes fires can often be managed. If caught in time.
Most of the fires burning in northern ontario are not detected early enough and too far from and real resources to deal with quickly. Doubling or tripling our resources would extend the area we could reasonably manage slightly, but for what's happening now, it would have little impact.
To actually control it you would need to observe ALL forests and have infrastructure throughout northern Canada. Thats alot more than tripple our current capacity, you would be tacking on a several zeros at the end of what we spend now.
Climate scientists mentioned this kinda stuff for the last few decades... shame we didnt listen.
Accepting the risks that come from quoting myself, the piece opens by stating that "no realistic human effort can fully eliminate or even guarantee containment of fires in Canada’s vast boreal forest as it becomes drier", and repeats this sentiment with regards to water bombers by bluntly stating they are not a panacea.
You're arguing against something this piece doesn't claim -- in fact, which it readily leans into -- as if it's central to the point being made.
Increased capacity would be beneficial for Canada. Some of this discussion is relevant to the cost benefit analysis of making that investment. But understanding options and obstacles is also necessary to reach that point. That's what this piece is about.
More highlighting the absurdity behind the complaints that started most of these conversations. The idea that any reasonable level of forest managment could prevent what's happening or the lack there of is the cause of the smoke drifting south needs to be addressed and called out.
Not disagreeing with what you stated, but it needs to be said over and over that the Republicans threatening Canada over smoke have zero ground to stand on.
Thinking aloud, to work through the DeHaviland Canada production bottleneck and begin the process of standing up a long-term national capability to produce water bombers at scale and further solidify Canada as *the* producer of water-bombers to the world, perhaps a new Crown Corp could be created to license and contract the production of water bombers in a federally owned plant(s)?
Specifically, the new crown corp could license production rights from DHC for the CL-515 and the Dash-8AT. The Crown Corp would contract Bombardier to operate the plant for the CL-515 and Dash 8, functionally reactivating production of the latter. The crown corp would assume responsibility for government-to-government sale of the two aircraft internationally, paying DHC royalties for the aircraft and contracting Bombardier to assume responsibility for in-service support for the two aircraft internationally within its existing supply chain and service depots.
Essentially, production of firefighting aircraft at scale has moved into the realm of national interest and DHC has not demonstrated the ability to date to fulfill this function in an entirely private sector capacity. The demand for water bombers, particularly the amphibious CL-515 and the runway-based Dash-8AT, is only going to grow in the coming years and there is risk that DHC will be bought by a foreign company that will move production out of Canada and cut us out of the equation for a pittance to DHC’s current ownership.
The retiring C130H's could be operated by a "Reserve" Squadron. An example is 402 sqdn in Winnipeg which has operated a Dash 8 variant as the navigator, now air combat systems officers supported by air combat sensor operators, soon to operate the Q400 upgrade platforms. A Yellowknife based reserve squadron would also access part time fliers whose "day jobs" are air transport through the north, example, Buffalo, which has already operated water bombers for NWT. They could also have a core mission with some regulars operating the Twin Otters that largely support the Rangers anyway. This is expanding our forces capability with dual use personnel.
the CL-515 is really the only viable option, since your C130 conversions require transit time to and from the fire, plus reload time on the ground. A c130 needs 3500' of runway, a Dash-8 4000, and a cl-415 3000'
you can operate the CL-415 from closer airports, and find water closer to the fire.
There's definitely a difference in the geographies where each is useful.
But I don't think we lack for fires where non-amphibious water bombers are useful at the moment. Pretty sure Dash-8s are currently working Ontario's fires, for instance.
Yeah, the conversion section of this is far from exhaustive, so there are lots. The AT72 is effectively the European Dash-8. No reason it wouldn't work for us except we already have Dash-8s... also, I don't think there are any converted examples yet. Just concepts.
It doesn't look like it's the one being discussed here, but one of those concepts involves strapping a couple pontoons to the bottom of an AT72 to make it amphibious, which I really want to see happen because I think it will look ridiculous.
Great overview of the options and challenges. I wish we had been first in line for the DHC-515s!
You narrowed the analysis’ down to twin-engine aircraft, leaving other options out the equation. What about complementing the larger water bombers with smaller one such as the AT-802F Fire Boss ? For the price of a single DHC-515, you might be able to buy 12-15 Fire Bosses and drop 10 times the amount of water (albeit in smaller less potent batches). Quickly responding to small fires with more aircraft could reduce the number of large wildfires that need the punching power of fewer of the large water bombers. What do you think?
I think its smaller size does make it less useful on these fires... but I also think at least part of why I didn't include it in the piece is because it was hard to find information about it. This is hindsight, but that's why my multi-engine requirement seems a little hand-wave-y.
With that hindsight, this was a mistake. I should have engaged with it and acknowledged the lack of information instead of including a weak reason not to mention it.
I still don’t understand if we know there is drought and we know a storm is on its way, why water-bombers aren’t dispatched before to make the area less arid.
I did some back of the envelope math, and came up with a figure of more than 30,000 water drops needed per hour to put down the equivalent of 1 cm of rainfall ahead of a single large storm cell.
1 cm is less than than the cell itself will often drop, so that's obviously insufficient to prevent fires.
Because of scale. Thunderstorms can pop up on very short notice, the area subject to drought is massive, and even if it were possible, and I don't think it is, it would require thousands... perhaps tens of thousands... of flights to try to offset.
(Remember that droughts don't just affect forests. They also effect the sources of water that firefighting aircraft use.)
I've been saying for at least year or two on social media that Canada should create a civilian 'Fire Guard' organization, with water bombers, smokejumpers, etc. and use it to assist provinces during wildfire season. Let's be honest, wildfire season is getting longer and burning more and more forest. The top worst years for amount of land burned by wildfires have all been in the past 50 years (since 1979), and 2023, 2024, and 2025 are all in that top 10. With 2.7 million hectares burned already this year, 2026 will be added to the list.
The bonus is that we could use the 'Fire Guard' to assist countries in the southern hemisphere (Australia, Brazil, South Africa, etc.) or even US states like California, with their fire seasons during the winter months, meaning the assets and personnel aren't idle for six months of the year.
I appreciate the analysis of the Air options -- none are great, but some are less bad than others. Canada's current problem is that the US is getting smoke driven by natural winds from, principally, NW Ontario. I think the problem is actually much larger than this and we need to step back. Consider Wildfires suffer at least two basic truisms:
1. Forests *inevitably* burn, the question is not if, but how large.
2. Climate change makes these fires more likely, more frequent and more aggressive.
With the corollary that "every fire we beat now is just another fire waiting to happen later".
So the job is *not* preventing forest fires, but controlling how, when, and under what conditions. In US terms: its not about smoke, but how bad, and when.
This is a bigger question than 'how to fight a large fire'. Like Northern Situational awareness, the solution is more than just hardware, but a WoG approach to the problem comprising policy, organization, funding, and personnel.
I agree with Jamie Friesen: a Fire Guard (or maybe Land Guard - equiv to the Coast Guard) with responsibility for domestic First Response to natural land disasters, and SAR, roles currently shared by local police, fire, provinces, and CAF. Failing that, a standards and grants program to support/expand provincial First Responders for training/equipment, possibly backed by National Service (if that comes to pass).
So while more aircraft are part of the mix, many questions remain: Who are the fire fighting (air and surface) forces? Who's in charge (monitoring, prioritizing, planning)? How are they funded/based/trained? What is the objective? These questions are great, but we have to walk and chew gum -- we can't wait for answers.
Of course, Ottawa and the Provinces, ever mindful of money and power, will probably default to a committee or coordinating group. Sigh.
Informative article, thanks.
Feels like we're always aiming for a small change hoping to make a larger impact. Avoiding fixing our retention is why we keep dismissing good ideas "because we dont have enough people for xyz". No combo of reorganization, shuffling or crown corp is gonna dig another fire trench. Retain and attract more people, and by the time our first airframe lands at a CFB in 10 years, we should have a crew ready. Anything short of that is accepting that we dont care enough to fix this sustainably.
To be clear, Canada could have doubled or tripled its firefighting capacity and these fires would largly be going the exact same.
If Canada had zero wildfire firefighting capacity and someone proposed setting up the systems and structures we currently have, someone could just as accurately say that once we did, "these fires would largely be going the exact same".
Except that's not really true. We do put out fires early that would otherwise grow into conflagrations. And the differences we make on the margins of the fires that become big protect people and property. They matter.
Doubling or tripling resources would increase these impacts. There will still be large fires, and people will focus much more on the fires that continue to happen rather than the ones that don't. But this isn't a zero impact investment.
When a fire is found early, within an hour of it starting, yes it can often be managed.
When there is road access to areas, yes fires can often be managed. If caught in time.
Most of the fires burning in northern ontario are not detected early enough and too far from and real resources to deal with quickly. Doubling or tripling our resources would extend the area we could reasonably manage slightly, but for what's happening now, it would have little impact.
To actually control it you would need to observe ALL forests and have infrastructure throughout northern Canada. Thats alot more than tripple our current capacity, you would be tacking on a several zeros at the end of what we spend now.
Climate scientists mentioned this kinda stuff for the last few decades... shame we didnt listen.
Accepting the risks that come from quoting myself, the piece opens by stating that "no realistic human effort can fully eliminate or even guarantee containment of fires in Canada’s vast boreal forest as it becomes drier", and repeats this sentiment with regards to water bombers by bluntly stating they are not a panacea.
You're arguing against something this piece doesn't claim -- in fact, which it readily leans into -- as if it's central to the point being made.
Increased capacity would be beneficial for Canada. Some of this discussion is relevant to the cost benefit analysis of making that investment. But understanding options and obstacles is also necessary to reach that point. That's what this piece is about.
More highlighting the absurdity behind the complaints that started most of these conversations. The idea that any reasonable level of forest managment could prevent what's happening or the lack there of is the cause of the smoke drifting south needs to be addressed and called out.
Not disagreeing with what you stated, but it needs to be said over and over that the Republicans threatening Canada over smoke have zero ground to stand on.
Thinking aloud, to work through the DeHaviland Canada production bottleneck and begin the process of standing up a long-term national capability to produce water bombers at scale and further solidify Canada as *the* producer of water-bombers to the world, perhaps a new Crown Corp could be created to license and contract the production of water bombers in a federally owned plant(s)?
Specifically, the new crown corp could license production rights from DHC for the CL-515 and the Dash-8AT. The Crown Corp would contract Bombardier to operate the plant for the CL-515 and Dash 8, functionally reactivating production of the latter. The crown corp would assume responsibility for government-to-government sale of the two aircraft internationally, paying DHC royalties for the aircraft and contracting Bombardier to assume responsibility for in-service support for the two aircraft internationally within its existing supply chain and service depots.
Essentially, production of firefighting aircraft at scale has moved into the realm of national interest and DHC has not demonstrated the ability to date to fulfill this function in an entirely private sector capacity. The demand for water bombers, particularly the amphibious CL-515 and the runway-based Dash-8AT, is only going to grow in the coming years and there is risk that DHC will be bought by a foreign company that will move production out of Canada and cut us out of the equation for a pittance to DHC’s current ownership.
The retiring C130H's could be operated by a "Reserve" Squadron. An example is 402 sqdn in Winnipeg which has operated a Dash 8 variant as the navigator, now air combat systems officers supported by air combat sensor operators, soon to operate the Q400 upgrade platforms. A Yellowknife based reserve squadron would also access part time fliers whose "day jobs" are air transport through the north, example, Buffalo, which has already operated water bombers for NWT. They could also have a core mission with some regulars operating the Twin Otters that largely support the Rangers anyway. This is expanding our forces capability with dual use personnel.
Your article on water bomber options was very comprehensive and detailed. Could there not be another option for joint procurement with the EU?
Not really...
Joint procurements can mitigate costs, but they don't typically speed things up. Speed is the challenge at present, imo.
the CL-515 is really the only viable option, since your C130 conversions require transit time to and from the fire, plus reload time on the ground. A c130 needs 3500' of runway, a Dash-8 4000, and a cl-415 3000'
you can operate the CL-415 from closer airports, and find water closer to the fire.
There's definitely a difference in the geographies where each is useful.
But I don't think we lack for fires where non-amphibious water bombers are useful at the moment. Pretty sure Dash-8s are currently working Ontario's fires, for instance.
Another multi-engine option? https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/air-transport/2026-07-18/corsica-technics-signs-loi-atr72-fire-fighting-kits
Yeah, the conversion section of this is far from exhaustive, so there are lots. The AT72 is effectively the European Dash-8. No reason it wouldn't work for us except we already have Dash-8s... also, I don't think there are any converted examples yet. Just concepts.
It doesn't look like it's the one being discussed here, but one of those concepts involves strapping a couple pontoons to the bottom of an AT72 to make it amphibious, which I really want to see happen because I think it will look ridiculous.
Great overview of the options and challenges. I wish we had been first in line for the DHC-515s!
You narrowed the analysis’ down to twin-engine aircraft, leaving other options out the equation. What about complementing the larger water bombers with smaller one such as the AT-802F Fire Boss ? For the price of a single DHC-515, you might be able to buy 12-15 Fire Bosses and drop 10 times the amount of water (albeit in smaller less potent batches). Quickly responding to small fires with more aircraft could reduce the number of large wildfires that need the punching power of fewer of the large water bombers. What do you think?
I think its smaller size does make it less useful on these fires... but I also think at least part of why I didn't include it in the piece is because it was hard to find information about it. This is hindsight, but that's why my multi-engine requirement seems a little hand-wave-y.
With that hindsight, this was a mistake. I should have engaged with it and acknowledged the lack of information instead of including a weak reason not to mention it.
Not a problem, just trying to contribute to the discussion.
I still don’t understand if we know there is drought and we know a storm is on its way, why water-bombers aren’t dispatched before to make the area less arid.
Prevention heavy!
I did some back of the envelope math, and came up with a figure of more than 30,000 water drops needed per hour to put down the equivalent of 1 cm of rainfall ahead of a single large storm cell.
1 cm is less than than the cell itself will often drop, so that's obviously insufficient to prevent fires.
We often have multiple cells at once.
Because of scale. Thunderstorms can pop up on very short notice, the area subject to drought is massive, and even if it were possible, and I don't think it is, it would require thousands... perhaps tens of thousands... of flights to try to offset.
(Remember that droughts don't just affect forests. They also effect the sources of water that firefighting aircraft use.)