First, typically you can talk about runways as being less than one kilometre long. You could land on much shorter than that, but typically an unpaved runway of one kilometre is something that we can use. If you want to have additional information, you know that it depends on the maximum takeoff weight of the aircraft. There are some charts that give you the distance of the runway, but typically as a general statement something in the ratio of one kilometre is good for the normal operation of the plane.
How can we ameliorate the present fixed-wing SAR? Dramatically, I would say. First of all, in areas like availability of the plane, with full respect to the Buffaloes, you are talking about engines and systems that were designed 40 or 50 years ago, compared with state-of-the-art engines and systems that would give you an unbelievable readiness, which is not available today.
The second thing is the mission system. You can imagine that the search using a mission system would be 500 times as effective as the typical visual search that you are using today. I repeat, 500 is the factor that the technicians are using. You are jumping ahead with the technology by 50 years, and of course in terms of life cycle, first because physically what you are doing, with full respect, is sometimes using planes not adapted for search and rescue, with maintenance and operation costs that are three times those for the C-295. So you have flexibility, 500 times greater effectiveness, and life-cycle costs.