While contract prices and there breakdown will have differences, when the gap is that large it does raise eyebrows. The five eyes is an intelligence sharing agreement in other words it is about how we share our intell and not about what equipment we use to gather it, It was originally covering the commonwealth countries and the USA then joined it on entry to WW2. we are buying a transport aircraft, I see little connection to justify that as a reason as any intel equipment could be fitted to any suitable aircraft.. This would not be the first time that our armed forces have become fixated on an outcome as when I worked in D Eng I saw cases were the rules were carefully written to ensure an outcome. The final price will be interesting. My experience at Def HQ and time on aircraft leads me to feel that the risk factor with the KC 390 has been grossly overstated and there is a risk factor with the c130 of early obsolescence. The problem with taking a no risk at all approach to anything in life leads to a lack of progress, though excessive risk can be the cause of a lot of pain and I would have to admit at times to have visited both areas of risk to my detriment at both ends of the scale.
Whilst FVEY is an intelligence sharing agreement, the term is also used to cover other agreements and arrangements between AUCANNZUKUS, which is a rather large mouthfull. I think you may find that FVEY is a child of ULTRA rather than any intel agreement amongst the Dominions and ULTRA was very closely guarded. The Dominions would've had only been told what Churchill and London wanted them to know and I know that more than once Churchill and London were rather economical with the truth and / or disingenuous in their dealings with the Australian & NZ govts over troop deployments etc. The Greece balls up is one example. I strongly doubt that any of the AU, CAN, or NZ PMs or senior govt members knew anything about ULTRA. Even when the US were invited in access was severally restricted. There would've been people in allied forces who had ULTRA clearance, but who's superiors didn't.
Remarkably the Herc was designed at the height of the Korean War. The Herc will definitely celebrate its Centenary in 2054 with a large number still in service.
One thing which it seems was overlooked when listing Portugal's purchase of KC-390 and the NZ acquisition of C-130J is to really look at what was purchased, aside from 'just' the aircraft themselves. Even with Boeing involved, is the parts support for the KC-390 going to be as large and robust as what is available for the C-130J right away? What about training and sims? Or how about aircraft modification and/or certification?
Military certification of aircraft and the kit involved is different to civilian requirements and where the basic structure has not been compromised is usually done in house by the modifier or designer and is not an expensive problem, A significant number of mods and equipment changes passed thru D Eng while I was there with little fanfare or cost and the RNZAF has done a large number of extensive fits and refits over the years to be very comfortable with the process. For example the C130 passive warfare kit, A4 kahu, P3 K and K2 rebuilds, the list is far more extensive, but I will stop there.
An Update on the Australian C-130J: Plan Jericho and Related Developments - Second Line of Defense
The impression I have gotten is that NZ has either loss some capability to carry out such modifications, or lost the capability altogether. The C-130H SLEP debacle comes to mind as a rather glaring example. I would also imagine that doing something like adding hard points and a wiring harness in areas where the aircraft designers had not intended one to be would potentially compromise the aircraft structure.
The RNZAF - yes. The wider NZ aviation industry - no.
The problem with the SLEP program was that the original contractor went bankrupt and the ministry of defence then took over the program and wrighted the ship, but this whole process did take up a lot of time. Hard points to carry new equipment do need stress analise and quite often additional local strengthening but that is not unusual and that design work is usually contracted out to the aircrafts manufacture, and new wiring will usually just follow or replace existing wiring.
Hi, Friends.
Likely aerial delivery/parachute drop analysis/certification. Whole mess of DoD/contractor equipment in place to do just that. No need to reinvent the wheel.
Nice as it might be I feel there's just too few airframes to start extending the role to armed tasks. As it is I'm concerned the ISR planned for the new 'J' fleet might morph into the touted 'complimentary capability' for the P8... there's just too few J's to also take on a sustained 'lite MPA' role. Also there is no obvious policy for an armed role mentioned in the DCP.
I can see both the value in, as well as few reasons for the ability to mount/carry podded ISR kit.
The Dutch are replacing DC-10 tankers with A330 MRTT, & the UK has replaced Tristars, a similar aircraft. They're content with the MRTT's performance.
TBH, if we decide to travel down the KC path I'd take the A330-MRTT over the KC-46 any day. Tried and true platform FOC with 2 FVEY partners, and the RAAF already working on increasing its capability sets.
I think the Multi Role capability provided by the A330 trumps all else for small airforces such as our two antipodean units.
Am I right in thinking the MRTT (RAAF ones at least) don't have the strengthened floor so can't carry pallets on the main deck? Seating & tanking equipment space only on main deck?