Could that be one of the 5 current active ones just getting some routine maintenance?? If recollection serves me A39-006 and A39-007 (RAAF serial numbers for the 6th and 7th KC-30A's) are being converted in Spain and not Australia. Couldn't see them flying the thing's 16,000km give or take to start the flight trials.
Could well have been, didn't get a chance to see the tail number.
No word on the Roulettes but 4 Squadron will get PC-21 to replace it's existing PC-9 for peacetime FAC / JTAC duties and ARDU will be getting some as well...
Regardless of if it's one or two VIP fitouts for the two extra KC-30A's, I don't really care, as long as the primary capabilities are maintained.
Retaining core role is key so fully agree with you, In regards to the BBJ's and 604's not sure a G550 would be seen as a comparable replacement to the BBJ however that being said with the extra capacity gained from the KC-30's a BBJ replacement may not be viewed as strictly necessary. If a replacement is seen as necessary then I'd imagine something of similar size with ideally something from the 737 family as may be able to tap into same support facilities relating to the E-7's.For the 604's the G550's would be an ideal replacement as they are relatively comparable and would give us a larger fleet possibly lower the per unit operational cost.
It all comes down to if we still have a two tier VIP fleet, as is the case now with the BBJ's and the 604's, or if we move to a three tier VIP fleet, one of the KC-30A's fitted for VIP work (when applicable), plus replacements for the BBJ's and the 604's.
I've often wondered if, for nations with smaller budgets like NZ if the P-8A could be paired with the marine version of the MQ-9 Reaper to keep overall system costs down?
So from my reading, apparently APA submitted something they called a "Zero-One Comparative Technique (ZOCT) Table" which was roundly dismissed by Defence et al. In short it is a single table (!?) in which the F35 is compared to J20/PAKFA et al. in a binary (and in many cases flat out incorrect) fashion on the basis of utterly arbitrary, contrived performance metrics. Literally the kind of "analysis" I would expect from one of my teenage students over a game of Battlefield 3...
As I've always understood it, a Senate Committee, and it's report, has no 'power' to impose its findings/results on the Government, eg, the elected Government of the day with the majority in the House of Reps.
It sounds like it. I just can't fathom why you would bother airing (in, nevertheless, a Government setting) the opinion of people who literally have no more to contribute to the discussion than any other raving lunatic you could randomly pick from the street. Same level of access to the pertinent information and, (apparently) same level of insight! It would be like asking my Grandad for his analysis of the geopolitical situation in the Middle East. He'd be happy to talk your ear off about it but is he really the best person to ask!?
Best thing to do is to make yourself familiar with the 2016 DWP and IIP, you can download both PDF's at the link below:
Couple of things, the old saying "opinions are like a---holes, everyone has one!" And the world is full of a---holes too!
Thanks for that
Sorry mods - off topic I know - Fridayitis.
The thing with any new capability (and especially one like this), is that just because an 'airframe' is to be completed by a certain date for 'handover' by the supplier doesn't necessarily mean that the capability will be available for service from that date.