NZDF General discussion thread

[Vivendi]

For small countries like New Zealand alliances with larger countries will become very important, but even small countries must build much stronger defences. NATO has a stated goal of 2% of GDP spent on defence. Given the grim and highly uncertain future we are facing I think this is too low -- 3% should be minimum. According to some sources NZ spent 1.5% in 2020 (Military expenditure (% of GDP) - New Zealand | Data (worldbank.org) ) thus IMO NZ should roughly double their defence spending.

Some NATO countries manage without fighter jets, including the Baltics and Iceland. No doubt New Zealand can manage without as well provided they have ironclad agreements with Australia and the US, i.e. something as strong as NATOs article 5.

Unfortunately I am extremely pessimistic about some future global trends. Allies of the US should really get their acts together and start investing in defence. One big learning from the "peace dividend" Europe were "cashing in" after the end of the cold war, is that it will take a long time and cost a lot of money to rebuild capabilities. NZ (and Australia and Japan) better start rebuilding capabilities, ASAP. As should Europe.

 

[swerve]

...
Yes, I agree, spending $6b or so on a squadron of F-35’s (or such like) "now" would be nuts for various reasons (eg defence budget pressures, other higher priorities, one squadron can’t be “everywhere” at once, pilots still at the “crawl” stage etc).

But I also agree with Rob C’s previous thoughts that a cadre of pilots and support needs to be established. As it takes time, a long time, to rebuild a lost capability, NZ could be smart and spend a lot less (as in hundreds of millions) by leasing/buying second hand types and partner with a training “provider”.

What about an arrangement with Australia to second some RNZAF personnel to the RAAF?

 

[Stuart M]

What about an arrangement with Australia to second some RNZAF personnel to the RAAF?

If the decision is made I wouldn't be too fixated on platform type, to begin with seconding people to RAAF is an excellent idea, sending some to RAF would also be a good idea as well. Id also want to do as NZ has done in the past and get secondees posted to NZ in certain roles such as doctrine, command and various types of training positions.

 

[Stuart M]

For small countries like New Zealand alliances with larger countries will become very important, but even small countries must build much stronger defences. NATO has a stated goal of 2% of GDP spent on defence. Given the grim and highly uncertain future we are facing I think this is too low -- 3% should be minimum. According to some sources NZ spent 1.5% in 2020 (Military expenditure (% of GDP) - New Zealand | Data (worldbank.org) ) thus IMO NZ should roughly double their defence spending.

Some NATO countries manage without fighter jets, including the Baltics and Iceland. No doubt New Zealand can manage without as well provided they have ironclad agreements with Australia and the US, i.e. something as strong as NATOs article 5.

Unfortunately I am extremely pessimistic about some future global trends. Allies of the US should really get their acts together and start investing in defence. One big learning from the "peace dividend" Europe were "cashing in" after the end of the cold war, is that it will take a long time and cost a lot of money to rebuild capabilities. NZ (and Australia and Japan) better start rebuilding capabilities, ASAP. As should Europe.

I think that In NZ case as an island nation in a vast ocean it's priorities must be navy, air, then army, this is a dictate of geography. If the Balts don't have fast air I suspect that too is a result of geographic reality placing them so close to Russia

 

[Vivendi]

I think that In NZ case as an island nation in a vast ocean it's priorities must be navy, air, then army, this is a dictate of geography. If the Balts don't have fast air I suspect that too is a result of geographic reality placing them so close to Russia

The Baltics definitely "need" fighter jets (in particular since they are so close to Russia), and in a way they do have them -- however they are not owned and operated by the Baltic countries themselves, they are provided on a rotational basis by NATO allies. The reason why the Baltics don't have their own fighter jets is basically a lack of money. They are small countries and therefore small defence budgets in real terms (a significant percentage of GDP, but since their GDPs are so small...).

They may get their own fighter jets in the future, who knows. It might make sense for them to pool their resources and purchase and operate fighter jets as a shared resource.

 

[Xthenaki]

The cost of an AFC would be spread over a significant period of time, the RNZAF calculated it would take 15 years to re-establish it up to the standard it was. It must also be kept in mind that the main function was and would be Anti air and anti shipping over the sea. this would require a significantly simpler aircraft than is needed by countries who have to carry out operations in a more complex environment, The anti air element would not have to deal with large numbers of land based combat aircraft as we are outside of the combat radius of modern combat strike aircraft from any land based location, (except possibly Norfolk island ) so only long range transports or bombers have a potential to get here. Long range anti ship missiles would cover the anti ship role. It could be said that the P* could cover this role, however IMO we have to few and they are to important to be risked in this way.
It was estimated some 20 years ago by the RNZAF that the cost of re-establishment would be $3B, this would have risen over the period to at a guess to $6B which over 15 years is about $400M per year. I think this is do-able if we are serious about our freedom and sovereignty. As I have said before we need the ability to deter or stop any attempt at either a quick unopposed air or seaborne invasion of our country, before help arrives. Currently we do not have this ability and anyone could simply fly in or sale in with out opposition when ever they like, without warning and if anyone wanted to they could simply sail into one of our ports , take it over and start unloading what they want. Even a relatively simple AFC with the right weapons would make these options or combination of them unavailable to a potential aggressor.

The main problem I see with reestablishing an ACF and vastly improving our Defence force to the standard required is - No unified or cohesive direction to efficiently and purposefully move forward together and in the same direction by our parliamentry parties Looking at the current Labour govt they fell off the wall when NZF left the scene. Marks had planned their direction for this term. From here on unless it is agreed to by all parties concerned that defence spending will be shared and planned together and changes to effect this are made and agreed upon you could end up with this = Nat/act win 2023 election and reinstate the intent to reintroduce the ACF. Further down the line Labour return and cancel the program. Se La Vie !!!

 

[Rob c]

The main problem I see with reestablishing an ACF and vastly improving our Defence force to the standard required is - No unified or cohesive direction to efficiently and purposefully move forward together and in the same direction by our parliamentry parties Looking at the current Labour govt they fell off the wall when NZF left the scene. Marks had planned their direction for this term. From here on unless it is agreed to by all parties concerned that defence spending will be shared and planned together and changes to effect this are made and agreed upon you could end up with this = Nat/act win 2023 election and reinstate the intent to reintroduce the ACF. Further down the line Labour return and cancel the program. Se La Vie !!!

The unification of the idea, may be on the way as the current Labour Defence Minister has stated to the media that he does not rule out restarting the AFC. For a Labour minister to say this, there appears to be less likelihood of a labour cancelation should another government move to restart the AFC.

 

[Gooey]

Rob c,
As much as I'd like that to be true, I just do know this will be the case due to MinDefs demonstrated light weight status within Cabinet and with Treasury. Nationals response last week to the Ukraine fella is hopeful; the enormous 'but', is that this has to be an agreed Labour-National consensus. Without that, it is a waste of breath.

Tekao,
All good arguments, to a point. Certainly, sadly, there are few widely heard counters to these strands locally.
I would suggest that a more mature assessment recognises that NZ is master of its own destiny, is a wealthy country with regional responsibilities, and is a maritime nation. Also, there is no greater mate than Australia but we must provide a meaningful national contribution. The strategic environment has changed significantly for the worse and it can be argued that spending will increase if NZ wants to be part of modern "ANZUS" capabilities. A balanced NZDF (crikey, I hate that Land centric term) maritime based war fighting capability does not come from 2 old ANZAC FFH and 4 P-8A MPA; and, Air Power has significant characteristics to contribute to NZ regional security. Yes expensive. Yes, very long term if implemented. Definitely, would involve RAAF assistance. Yes, other areas such a 5-6 FFG, additional P8 and C130, meaningful helicopters, KC30s etc (note how 3rd place Land is and how inverse that is currently) should also happen but for national kinetic options, and soft power, there should also be a RNZAF ACF.

Is this likely to happen; that's another question. It doesn't mean that it should not.

@Gooey You have been on here long enough to know that NZ is not part of ANZUS. Stop suggesting any NZ participation in ANZUS post 1986. Any such claims or suggestions are pure misinformation. FYI until revokes the 1985 anti nuclear weapons legislation, NZ will not be party to any ANZUS type treaty that involves the US. The anti nuclear legislation is cast in stone and it would be political suicide for any politician to even hint at thinking about revoking it.

Ngatimozart.

 

[alexsa]

Folks, lets play nice. A few of the posts were less than polite in disagreeing with others views . You can make your point without sarcasm and I suggest posters should be treated with respect when they provide their views in a polite and well considered manner ……… even if you don’t agree with them.

Alexsa

 

[Xthenaki]

The unification of the idea, may be on the way as the current Labour Defence Minister has stated to the media that he does not rule out restarting the AFC. For a Labour minister to say this, there appears to be less likelihood of a labour cancelation should another government move to restart the AFC.

Next year upon receipt of the findings and recommendations from the expected defence review they need to be tabled in parliament and openly discussed at length to make awareness accross the board to all those in parliament and then to the NZ public. After that two areas need immediate attention. No 1 - An immediate increase in defence allocation and ongoing strategic allocations. No 2 - What are deemed to be the next major items needed and their order of priority with procurement. Point - We do not need any more reviews just ACTION. eg - A good example of political duck shoving is the Auckland Harbour bridge - still under review and could have been built, up and running and paid for.

 

[Volkodav]

If NZ wants an ACF, NZ needs to adequately fund an ACF. Until the money is available and guaranteed there is no point speculating.

Australia fluffed around for years trying to get SSN levels of capability out of a too small SSG fleet, before finally determining the larger (double size) fleet of larger conventional boats simply wasn't as good a value for money as a fleet of SSNs.

Unless/until there is bipartisan support in NZ to permanently increase defence funding sufficiently to procure, sustain and support an effectively sized ACF, and the required enabling capabilities, without cutting other critical capabilities, it is not going to happen, nor should it.

I put the B-21 for the RAAF in the same category as a NZ ACF. Looks nice, sounds good, but if there is no commitment to the required extra funding, and this includes funding for all the other necessary, and more critical capabilities, then it shouldn't happen.

 

[ddxx]

We've tried this before. Hell they even had the big talk at ministerial level and signed a piece of paper years / decades ago. Never happens because of all sorts of political reasons, plus differences in defence policies. There are also sovereignty issues that have to be considered.

I know you've been around much longer than I have and would be rather tired of the constant talk but little action - but I'm still optimistic.

Let's not forget that CER was pretty ground-breaking stuff when it was first announced - It's a great example of what we can do together when there's both a will and a way.

 

[ngatimozart]

I know you've been around much longer than I have and would be rather tired of the constant talk but little action - but I'm still optimistic.

Let's not forget that CER was pretty ground-breaking stuff when it was first announced - It's a great example of what we can do together when there's both a will and a way.

CER was done in a different time and even it hasn't reached its full potential yet. Australia banned NZ apples until very recently on very spurious grounds and there have been other niggles. However with CDR - Closer Defence Relations it has always been more of a talk fest and nothing else. Sometimes I get the impression that the Kiwi side are dead keen on it then do something that's not conducive to CDR. At other times I get the impression that the Aussie side are dead keen on it then do something that's not conducive to CDR. It's like at the political level they talk it up, but aren't that keen on doing it. Whereas at the NZDF / ADF level there would be no issues and they would soon have it all under control. The Helen Clark Labour govt of 1999 - 2008 certainly didn't help matters much because for the first three years Clark ran an American and anti Australian foreign policy. I am sure that our Treasury and Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) are staffed only by Ferengi.

 

[recce.k1]

What about an arrangement with Australia to second some RNZAF personnel to the RAAF?

If the decision is made I wouldn't be too fixated on platform type, to begin with seconding people to RAAF is an excellent idea, sending some to RAF would also be a good idea as well. Id also want to do as NZ has done in the past and get secondees posted to NZ in certain roles such as doctrine, command and various types of training positions.

Potentially this could apply to other branches of the RNZAF (not just for fast air development) and may be a good way to increase recruitment and retention. Occasionally one hears of NZ personnel flying RAF helicopters or whatnot, so there seems to be some sort of limited scheme in place (and ditto one occasionally hears of RAF & RAAF personnel serving with the RNZAF), but why not expand that and perhaps include the support trades etc? In terms of recruitment and retention, who wouldn't want a posting overseas and with a better military?

The likes of say the RAF is large enough to absorb a few dozen or more NZ'ers, for the RAF they get some of the best skilled and motivated Kiwi's, in return once these Kiwi's return after their stint they will be able to impart knowledge and best practice.

So kind of like the WW2 training but on much a smaller scale.

Also on the political level, the UK & NZ govt's appear to be willing to increase co-operation (on all sorts of levels so why not include Defence)? And we see this now with NZ's asistance to the UK with training the Ukraine army.

If the UK Govt carries on with their defence cuts, as Stuart points out, it could be a way to get secondees and/or transfers to NZDF's Services to fill the current personnel shortages.

The other thing about all this is, we wouldn't have to wait another 1-2 years for the outcome of the defence policy review to kick this off. Because under current Govt settings (people, infrastructure, Pacific), this could happen relatively quickly, particularly as they are dealing with a retention "issue" to fast-track discussions with the like of the UK and Australia.

 

[recce.k1]

From Parliamentary Business/Written Questions last week:

46127 (2022). Tim Van de Molen to the Minister of Defence (13 Dec 2022): Under what scenarios would an Air Force Combat Wing be established?

Hon Peeni Henare (Minister of Defence) replied: Reply due: 21 Dec 2022

Good to see the Opposition asking these questions (and presumably they wouldn't if they didn't have any interest themselves).

But don't expect a reply on 21 Dec (replies can take weeks after when they are due).

 

[StingrayOZ]

From Wikipedia.

Realistically there are only two countries that could threaten New Zealand with Fighter aircraft, that is Australia (with multiple refuelling (KC30/C130j) of long range fighters (eg F-18SH) with long range munitions (LRASM)) and the USA (from carriers). With bombers, again, only Australia and USA, unless 3rd party airfields could be arranged. It could be in range of long range marine aircraft

No other country could realistically threaten NZ with fighters, even from carriers, it is simply too far away. Unlike pretty much every other country, its just not a threat for NZ.

NZ and its zones are exposed, to shipping threats. If the NZDF wants to increase in strength, the Navy is the priority area. The aircraft that NZ could look at are P8's, MC55A/EL/W2085, C130 type aircraft.

• P8 has ~8000km range. It can carry strike missiles, torpedo's, buoys, rescue packages, etc. Its a kinetic hitter. It can also do SAR. 11 hardpoints. This is the aircraft US/AU/CA etc are using to conduct freedom of navigation flights which the Chinese are opposing with Fighter jets. Front line aircraft, providing real presence operations in contested spaces.
• G550 based MC55A/AEW has a ~12,000 km range. It can conduct EW/SIGINT ops. It can degrade the environment that enemy ops can't be sustained or conducted. It can jam airspace, It can collect intelligence, it can manage airspace, it can force multiply with US and AU elements as well as globally make contributions as most other air forces do not have these capabilities.
• C130 ~7000km range. It can lift equipment and resources, and sustain deployments across the region as well.

All of these are pretty expensive. But all of these would be relevant for NZ. They have long enough range to be able to operate from NZ itself, but provide regional presence. They could be based from fields further north and from smaller pacific fields, and provide huge range further north from those fields. Expensive to buy, but cheap to operate. The P8 and the G550 are based off commercial planes. Companies and celebrities can afford to operate this class of aircraft.

If NZ wants to improve its Navy, it shouldn't be looking at short range diesel submarines, which make as much sense as fighter jets. There are no strategic straits or tight geography around NZ for them to operate (again like fighter jets, where over the open pacific ocean do we see airbattles happening?).

It could however look at operate 4+ large frigates in the 3000-7000t range. Crewing would be much the same as the two frigates it has now, so while a large upfront acquisition cost, operational costs would be much the same as operating the current two Anzacs it currently has. They would be regionally and globally more important. A well armed, capable frigate is always a significant asset, in any situation.

NZ has in its favor an ally like no other in Australia. Australia shares a similar world view to NZ. Australia and NZ are brothers in arms and share a migration, military and economic policy basically unlike anywhere else. Australia is the regional superpower. Australia is aligned very closely with the global superpower. NZ also has strong relationships with the UK. No one is going to threaten the UK without those other elements getting involved.

However, they have limited resources. Australia is huge in area. It struggles to patrol it vast (~15% of the earth surface) SAR zone and huge EEZ zone as well as provide military coverage of alliances up north. The US has many capabilities, but again, its looking far north. It has basically no bases in the south pacific.

So its not going to be some unknown Chinese carrier strike group that slips through that NZ will have to repel, but perhaps, a lone ship, a grey coast guard ship, military/commercial fishing ships, intelligence ships, SSN etc. If NZ can close the EM spectrum to that ship, it becomes useless, if it can make it known where and what it is doing, it becomes useless.

Any investment in this capability would also be useful globally. Many forces don't invest in these type of enablers sufficiently.

 

[recce.k1]

View attachment 49959
From Wikipedia.

Realistically there are only two countries that could threaten New Zealand with Fighter aircraft, that is Australia (with multiple refuelling (KC30/C130j) of long range fighters (eg F-18SH) with long range munitions (LRASM)) and the USA (from carriers). With bombers, again, only Australia and USA, unless 3rd party airfields could be arranged. It could be in range of long range marine aircraft

No other country could realistically threaten NZ with fighters, even from carriers, it is simply too far away. Unlike pretty much every other country, its just not a threat for NZ.

Reply #1: Could it not be technically feasible for any nation that possesses air-air-refueling capabilities to strike NZ (or Australia), even symbolically?

From referencing Kato's post from last year:

The French Air and Space Force performed a long-range power projection exercise last week.

In this exercise called HEIFARA a group of 3 Rafale F3R and 2 A400M Atlas supported by 2 A330 MRTT Phenix flew from France to Tahiti (French Polynesia) over a distance of 17,000 km, performed an initial entry raid into contested airspace culminating in tactical strikes, then after "securing" an airfield - 39 hours after departure from France - performed high-intensity missions with 40 sorties over the next 5 days - reconnaissance, escort and strike sorties for the Rafales, tactical transport, SAR and (real) logistics missions for the A400M; including support missions for army ground forces and French Navy in the theater.

The A330MRTT, besides air-to-air refueling, also transported a company-sized expeditionary ground support element and upon entry to the theater established a satcom datalink for direct reachback from the fighters to a command center established in Lyon. The two A400M took along 30 tons of material from France to Tahiti.

The flight to Tahiti was performed with a single stopover in California, also establishing the longest-duration nonstop flight for Rafales so far - 12 hours for about 10,000 km, with 7 air-to-air refuelings.

HEIFARA is a test exercise, and part of an escalating series of similar missions over the past couple years, representing an important step in them. The target is to perform a full-scale exercise in 2023 that will test the full power projection level of ambition of the AdAedE. That level of ambition is to project a combat force of 20 Rafales over a distance of 20,000 km - i.e. globally - within 48 hours at any time, supported by up to 10 A330 MRTT.

You can find a detailed official press dossier on the exercise here (in English).

Official teaser video:

Granted the above happened because the French (and similarly Germany's Luftwaffe, for this years Exercise Pitch Black) were granted a refueling stop over in a "friendly" third party country and overflight permissions, but it may still be feasible via an "unfriendly" country/countries?

Note: I'm merely posing the question. I agree with you such an occurrence would be most unlikely to ever happen (unless it was a major regional power by way of your examples or perhaps the CCP during a major conflict, with some unusually high strategic reason (or critical "high value target" that happened to be visiting or transiting within NZ's zones) to go to so much effort).

I think your follow-on arguments are very much spot on and I'll comment on them next. In fact in my advocacy for a ACF (even in a limited form) is not to contend with (highly unlikely) potential long-range fighter/bomber scenarios that you outline above, but the scenarios you outline in the rest of your discussion post to do with the maritime sphere.

 

[recce.k1]

NZ and its zones are exposed, to shipping threats. If the NZDF wants to increase in strength, the Navy is the priority area. The aircraft that NZ could look at are P8's, MC55A/EL/W2085, C130 type aircraft.

• P8 has ~8000km range. It can carry strike missiles, torpedo's, buoys, rescue packages, etc. Its a kinetic hitter. It can also do SAR. 11 hardpoints. This is the aircraft US/AU/CA etc are using to conduct freedom of navigation flights which the Chinese are opposing with Fighter jets. Front line aircraft, providing real presence operations in contested spaces.
• G550 based MC55A/AEW has a ~12,000 km range. It can conduct EW/SIGINT ops. It can degrade the environment that enemy ops can't be sustained or conducted. It can jam airspace, It can collect intelligence, it can manage airspace, it can force multiply with US and AU elements as well as globally make contributions as most other air forces do not have these capabilities.
• C130 ~7000km range. It can lift equipment and resources, and sustain deployments across the region as well.

All of these are pretty expensive. But all of these would be relevant for NZ. They have long enough range to be able to operate from NZ itself, but provide regional presence. They could be based from fields further north and from smaller pacific fields, and provide huge range further north from those fields. Expensive to buy, but cheap to operate. The P8 and the G550 are based off commercial planes. Companies and celebrities can afford to operate this class of aircraft.

Reply #2. Thanks for the detailed analysis Stingray.

1. I do agree additional capabilities as you describe above would be the higher priority, if it was a funding choice of either those, or an ACF only. Also add in a long-range maritime UAV capability as this has already been signalled and provisioned for (DCP19) from around 2030.

(Mind you I couldn't vouch for RNZAF, they may have other ideas, they have in the past (1950's/60's) put to govt plans to scrap an air support capability to accelerate the re-equipping of air combat capabilities)!

2. All I would add to the above is the B757 Strategic airlifter replacement. If it were to something like the (more expensive) KC-30A MRTT then that covers strategic airlift, a new AAR capability (to support the P8 & C-130J's if fitted to receive fuel), VIP, Antarctic operations without PSR point of safe return issues, regional allied interoperability and seamless integration etc.

3. But fingers crossed the defence policy review/follow on reviews recognises and supports NZDF needing two strategic airlift types, type 1 - as above, type 2 - aircraft with rear ramp (A400M/C-2 etc). Because one type cannot cover both needs (as I suggest this is why Treasury wouldn't support NZDF's C-17 acquisition back in 2014 - the funding wouldn't cover both types and operating only one type showed up policy failures).

4. Rotary support. Do we have enough? If not would the 8 former RAN MRH-90's (that are being maintained for sale) be an opportune purchase? Does NZ need heavy lift rotary capabilities now looking ahead? The Seasprite maritime helo replacement project is underway, in fact "progressing at pace" according to the CAF (AF News Dec 22) so that base is being covered.

5. If the above 4 can be addressed sufficiently well and if the will (and funding is there), that's where IMO a restored ACF would fit in. Even if it were second-hand bought or leased 4th generation aircraft to start "raising and training", primarily for maritime strike operations in NZ/South Pacific region (not as an expeditionary force as it wouldn't be capable). Then say by 2030 or so decide it's future (with the global geo-political situation being faced at that time), eg status quo, or is there a need to move to 5th generation and expeditionary operations?

 

[StingrayOZ]

Reply #1: Could it not be technically feasible for any nation that possesses air-air-refueling capabilities to strike NZ (or Australia), even symbolically?

No. Not really.

3 unarmed fighter jets, loaded with drop tanks, which required 3 refuelling tankers to get them there, and they had three stops in the US. It was perhaps the ability to show they could transport unarmed fighters into the region, but a realistic strike based remotely, it was not.

Operation HEIFARA WAKEA 2021

Operation HEIFARA WAKEA 2021 From 20 to 26 June 2021, the Armée de l'Air et de l'Espace (AAE, French Air and Space Force) will carry out a power projection mission, called HEIFARA,...

www.scramble.nl

The US was critical to the possibility of this. Which is fine for the French, they weren't intending to perform a type of mission without US support, or even realistically remotely strike at french Polynesia to take it back. The French also have a carrier, but I have to say, it is rare to see it operating in the Pacific near New Zealand. They have one carrier, and moving it to NZ EEZ, would mean all the other French realms would not have access to the carrier.

It also demonstrates the issue about an NZ fighter squadron trying to deploy ~15,000 km away. It would require 3 tankers to move 3 fighters, even with allied support. To move 20, they will require 10 x A330 based refuelers. A high risk movement too, a broken probe, a health issue with a pilot, a technical problem with any of the planes over open water, not a lot of good options.

Doing it in peace time is very different from trying to do it in combat.

1. I do agree additional capabilities as you describe above would be the higher priority, if it was a funding choice of either those, or an ACF only. Also add in a long-range maritime UAV capability as this has already been signalled and provisioned for (DCP19) from around 2030.

Long range UAV's would be definitely something NZ could look into and would have a useful range. But as mentioned the time frame seems to be into the future and far away.

2. All I would add to the above is the B757 Strategic airlifter replacement. If it were to something like the (more expensive) KC-30A MRTT then that covers strategic airlift, a new AAR capability (to support the P8 & C-130J's if fitted to receive fuel), VIP, Antarctic operations without PSR point of safe return issues, regional allied interoperability and seamless integration etc.

KC-30 would be a good fit, and can refuel P8's/C130. However, getting money for that would be interesting. A330/A340 have flown to Antarctica. Not sure about NZ infrastructure for that kind of operation. But certainly possible. Getting one would make a stronger argument for having a larger P8 fleet. I guess the question comes down to priorities for NZ.

3. But fingers crossed the defence policy review/follow on reviews recognises and supports NZDF needing two strategic airlift types, type 1 - as above, type 2 - aircraft with rear ramp (A400M/C-2 etc). Because one type cannot cover both needs (as I suggest this is why Treasury wouldn't support NZDF's C-17 acquisition back in 2014 - the funding wouldn't cover both types and operating only one type showed up policy failures).

IMO NZ was mad for not getting in on the C17 and will represent the fish that got away. Operational costs a good for that aircraft type and it is good at both long range and rear ramp.

Everyone can always use more Helos. MH60R IMO would be more useful than N90's. Again, land vs Navy requirement. What is going to be realistically useful in the next 10 years? But certainly see what happens with Australia's Nh90's. But its going to be fun to try and support that orphan type at high tempo, particularly for Naval purposes. MH60R with NSM would make for significant naval strike capability from a Ship.

But as we can see, it is easy to see many areas that NZ could easily pour money into and see real and significant improvement in capability, without having to go to fixed wing fighter aviation. Even in the realm of aviation. Even in the areas that fixed wing aviation would make contributions to. Its just short ranged, and hugely expensive, both to buy, to fly, to upgrade and to arm. Even a small force based out of Butterworth would be crippling to the NZ budget.

If NZ's status with the US or more importantly, AU changes, perhaps, otherwise then its not a concern. The RAAF is arguably the best funded of the 3 services, and has over 100 front line fighters which may grow to be ~130+ temporarily if a 4th F-35 squad is acquired. The US is basing B-52's and perhaps B21's up north, and air defence destroyers are based in Sydney. Its not like Australia has been neglecting its air force. Christ, its better than most of NATO currently operating the largest non-US F-35 force. Its arguably done that at opportunity cost to its Army and Navy.

NZ can enforce its EEZ with the P8 and C-130, and other non-fighter aircraft.

 

[recce.k1]

IMO NZ was mad for not getting in on the C17 and will represent the fish that got away. Operational costs a good for that aircraft type and it is good at both long range and rear ramp.

Basically the funding wasn't really there (as in not enough). At the time Treasury expected the NZDF to lose or reduce an existing capability to offset the acquisition cost for two C-17's. This wasn't to be easy for NZDF as they were paired back enough as it was (plus also find additional funding for new operating costs, on top of the acquisition costs, which were projected to be higher than running the 757('s). This also wasted so much time trying to work through all of this (having to revise , then revise again etc) that time ran out when Boeing simply sold 4 of the 5 last Whitetails to Qatar.

(If anything they should have been bought 10 years prior when the Clark Labour Govt was in power, at around the same time of the Australian Govt initial order. Why do I say this? Because the Clark Govt made it a big thing that they when were going to disband the ACF the costs saved would be reinvested back into NZDF/RNZAF, plus they also made a big, make that a huge thing about the no 1 priority (for RNZAF) was to move the Army around. If we look back it was all talk, the C-130J's were cancelled with the C-130H's upgraded instead and no heavier airlift was bought to move the LAV's nor the future helicopter replacements. That is, despite the rhetoric, it was simply the status quo in PR fluff. Despite also Govt surplus after surplus for a number of years back then to easily fund this).

Anyway the moral of the C-17 story and anything else moving forward is the defence budget needs to increase (and more personnel recruited and becoming proficient). And it will as a result of the forthcoming defence policy review (due to the changing strategic envionment), except how much and over what time frames are the unknowns at the moment.

Everyone can always use more Helos. MH60R IMO would be more useful than N90's. Again, land vs Navy requirement. What is going to be realistically useful in the next 10 years? But certainly see what happens with Australia's Nh90's. But its going to be fun to try and support that orphan type at high tempo, particularly for Naval purposes. MH60R with NSM would make for significant naval strike capability from a Ship.

Perhaps I should have been clearer. Does NZ require more NH-90's for the Air Force to support the Army's land operations? In other words, should No 3 (NH90) Sqn increase its fleet size? They were originally funded for 12 flight crews to man 8 aircraft. It would have had a larger fleet size if the GOTD bought the additional NH-90's their review options recommended back in the 2000's. NZ doesn't seem to be experiencing the fleet unavailability issues that others are for some reason. If anything NZ's have some of the highest hours and there doesn't seem to be any whispers of an early retirement a la ADF. If that's the case we are stuck with them for better (excellent capability) or worse (higher operating cpfh).

For the Navy's Super Seasprite replacement, which is a separate project now underway, the original funding envelope ("More than $1b" according to DCP19) suggests a specialised maritime helo. Hopefully something compatible with operators in our region and with dipping sonar?

*******************************************************************************************
A final but different thought, people raise the need for a joint ANZAC unit, but never seems to eventuate for whatever reasons or even what is entailed.

What if the two Govt's agreed to the NZ Army basing a Rapid Response Group (Company) in Australia? It would allow NZ to deploy quickly and seamlessly with the ADF to trouble spots within the wider region. It would be a great recruitment and retention tool, after all who wouldn't want to be based abroad? (Think how people joined the Army to be posted to Singapore not that long ago)!

Support? Need some additional MHOV trucks (relatively inexpensive to acquire). NZ has 8x NZLAV's surplus (for sale - but let's be realistic no-one is going to buy 8x LAV's). Instead, base them in Australia with the RRG (maybe supplement them with another 4 from the other 74 operational in NZ to give 12). Acquire those 8 surplus MRH-90's and base 2-4 in Australia for troop lift (and bring the other 4-6 to NZ to bring the NH-90 fleet up to 10 or 12 and or attrition spares).

Presumably there is space in say Queensland to facilitate this?

This is a relatively small gesture but highly symbolic if there is a political will to make this happen! After all the former 2 (Skyhawk) Sqn Norwa detachment was probably of a similar size.