And I think that is a significant point made, you don't go to the trouble of going through the FMS notification process just for the fun of it.
Yes completely agree - the USCG visit was plainly & simply as part of the conference... no sales pitch involved whatsoever. And yes the current 40 Sqn C130H can do fairly rudimentary SAR - AIUI on the odd occasion they have relieved P3's while waiting overhead a 'found' target.
) may not always be on tap to do at short notice. 42 sqn looks destined to do some of the shorter range SAR as well. Fair enough. I was thinking about recent acquisitions where they have down-selected two finalists (DSME and Hyundai, Pilateus and Textron) and going to a Best and Final Offer stage.
True, but FMS notification doesn't always mean a sale proceeds. Last year Chile received FMS clearance for ESSM, which was one of three competing packages for their Type-23 frigate upgrade.
Yes certainly true that a sale doesn't automatically proceed, and at times too the requirement can be altered.
Yes agreed but then another issue I can see is then the numbers of C130 replacements we may get depending on what we evenrually go for. It was found with the current fleet 8 C130 would in fact be the optimal number to alleviate issues but somehow I think we may even struggle to get 1 for 1 for what we now have. Point is we may just end up with the same shortages in the future and may not be able to expect much assistence in this area without consequences or at least repeating the problems of the past.Yes completely agree - the USCG visit was plainly & simply as part of the conference... no sales pitch involved whatsoever. And yes the current 40 Sqn C130H can do fairly rudimentary SAR - AIUI on the odd occasion they have relieved P3's while waiting overhead a 'found' target.
My point was in response to another post that suggested the HC-130 would be looked at with interest in relation to the P1 vs P8 debate - I was simply saying there was no such relevance.
I did point out however that the FAMC project does ask for a SAR capability as a requirement so we may see that picking up some tasking that the reduced 5 sqn fleet (hypothetical example = 4 x P8A
I don't expect the FAMC platform(s) will have specific SAR sensors but they could offer some capability along with pairs of eyeball sensors. Also if the location of a vessel in distress is known from beacons etc there's less searching required and more an oversight / comms role required - a job a transport a/c could do fairly easily.
Agree we won't see 40 & 42 moving into a SAR role as a core tasking but to assist 5 sqn where circumstances (including a smaller 5 sqn fleet) dictate they might be able to assist effectively.
Yeah I totally agree - I'd plump for 5 x FASC; 2 x FAMC strategic; 6 x FAMC tactical; 5 x light tactical... (or just 8 tactical) but it feels very unlikely they will get more than 4 x FASC and 1:1 replacements for 40 sqn.
As reported here by some the time on task for the P8s, during the Malaysian Airlines search in the Southern Ocean, was approx double that of the P3s.
So how many does that in reality does that leave to patrol NZ, given that some will be in maintainence during the year, others on deployment in the gulf or even on a trans tasman exersize, one airframe?
P8s provide a warfighting capability for NZ in ASW and ISR and provide long range SAR.
Apologies, i meant nz in the broader context of our eez and the pacific region we patrol.which quite obviously, the king air have neither range or sensors to do so.
You seem to be focusing on a platform / airframe and not a force capability.
Just like any organisation priorities come into play and you cannot cover every eventuality everytime otherwise we could just do that for every major platform we have and either go broke, have overkill or have idle platforms sitting around taking up funding all for "what ifs". If you are going off the fact we have 6 P3s and therefore judge we then need 6 P8s to complete the same job then you would be alittle off. Old tech in even older frames tends to go U/S more often than not and the reliability and maintanence/crewing practices of new builds will see them available alot more than 1960s era platforms so in fact 4 P8s vs 6 P3s is not as dire as it seems. This is not even taking into account the greater capability afforded or the short range platform already mooted which will focus their qualities more efficiently for better results. I would argue we have 6 P3s just to be able to have a fleet of 4 available anyway including programmed maintanence and with the advent of plug and play and fault finding diagnostics spare components are just as important as spare platforms these days with similar outcomes.
Whilst that is true, what happens when the 4 P8's are 20+ years old, and you will then have fewer than 4 available due programmed maintenance and unexpected unserviceability?
Yes it is 20 years from now that we might see the squeeze - not so much on air frames & engines that will benefit to a degree from the commonality with the commercial variants, but more on the internal systems as software needs upgrading, replacing etc to keep it running. The modern concept of systems modularity may however alleviate some of that.
Triton or other UAS? A business jet variant? Who knows - maybe remanufactured 737-8ERX airframes into replacements in 20 years time. Boeing is proposing the 8ERX with beefed up wings, landing gear and fuselage center section 44 to replace the B757 in commercial passenger and cargo fleets.
Thanks for that, been wanting to see how a A400 m would handle our lav 3 with extra armour. Saves having to remove it before loading eh?Not RNZAF but pertinent to the ongoing FAMC discussion. A RAF A400M loading a US Army Stryker (LAV 25) recently in the US.