All valid points...

G'day Andrew,
These are all vaild points that, in some cases, have been raised before. So allow me to answer some of your questions as best I can given the reserch I haved done of VLATs to this point:
A/ The re-fill/turn-a-round times on a VLTA varies depending on the type and it's composition of load. Generally speaking though, the 747 can be turned around in 15 to 30 minutes while the DC-10 can be on the go again in 8 to 12 minutes. The thing to remember though is that both the 747 and DC-10 have higher "dash" transit speeds than any other tanker aircrft and can be anywhere in Victoria within 45 minutes.
B/ The VLTA will use either Tulla or Avalon, given above-mentioned transit speeds though, the actual airport of location is somewhat academic. Once deployed with self-transporting module specilised GSE in place, loading of water/retardant is not a problem as has been amply demonstrated this year with the succesful deployments of the DC-10s to Canada and Alaska, and the 747 to Europe.
C/ With the issue of potential structual damage to buildings, the 747 is unique amongst airborne tankers in that, via computer control, it can vary the preasure of it's water/retardant discharge to accomodate for things such as this, wind conditions, and visability/altitude issues. Besides, better to potentially suffer some structual damage than the complete loss of bulidings due to fire damage. Incidently, this has not been a reported significant issue with these VLAT aircraft to date, because their use and discharge patterns are strictly controlled.
D/ The ATC issues are a challenge regardless of aircraft-type because of the fluid nature and fast-paced changing dynamics of a given fire situation. As mentioned though, this concept of a multi-faceted airborne fire attack system has been effectivly employed overseas where good command and control has seen to it that not to many aeroplanes run into each other.
E/ As to the issue of reduced visability due smoke. This is and always will be a challenge regardless of the airborne fire-fighting assets being deployed. As mentioned previously however, due to the variable preasure discharge ability of the 747, it can at least drop from a higher altitudes if need be, hopefuly getting above some of the localised smoke/visability conditions.
Finally, An airborne fire fighting force must be considered an "Air force" by any other definition, and like any airforce it needs both strategic and tactical assets. The VLATs perform that stategic role. The fire fighting air force would therefore not be complete without them in the "arsenal" . Recent overseas experience has proven this to be very much the case, and clearly, our Government now agrees!!!
the other(very happy) Ray