I’m gunna suggest that NZs acquisition of the A321 is indicative of a historical mindset.
I think NZ needs a long range strategic lifter, and I think the A321 is an excellent aircraft, and for its narrow mission set (moving Pers and pallet cargo, with some VIP adjuncts), it’s a good pick.
However I think NZ missed a potential by revealing its governing attitude to defence.
They could’ve opted for a flight of KC30s.
It would’ve addressed strategic lifter, and added a useful multiplier to its inevitable allied Air Capability thru supplementing AAR.
It could’ve mitigated costs by linking into its closest neighbour with training, logistics, operational exercises.
But it didn’t.
Im gunna suggest it didn’t because:
Either it didn’t even think of it.
- because it has a ‘single’ state mindset but inevitably will need to aspire to contribute to joint capability.
Or it says that the KC30 is too expensive.
In which case NZ says it wants to contribute, but not by that much!
Which reflects NZGov historical precedence of defaulting capability requirements to its allies.
So whilst the A321s are an excellent aircraft and more capable than its predecessor, it represents a missed opportunity for NZ and ANZAC capability as a whole.
I agree the KC30 would be a great asset for NZ to have.
But I think the reasons for not doing so (at this point in time*1.) may be for different reasons:
* Too much of an aircraft for NZ's troop lift needs, usually only needing to move an Army company (not up to 270 at a time or only very infrequently).
* Runway MTOW limitations in the SW Pacific (compared to smaller narrow body's eg A321 etc).
* AAR capability would be underutilised, making aircrew operation qualification difficult to maintain (eg no NZ fast air jets to routinely practice with. Not sure a handful of P-8's would sustain qualifications (the new C-130J's don't have AAR receiving fitout - design provision used for satcom instead). Meaning NZ aircrews may not be as proficient as say their RAAF counterparts (who then may be unwilling to "risk" using NZ KC30's for their fast air ops)?
* Therefore from a NZ Treasury point of view the higher acquisition and operating costs could not be justified.
* Finally, if NZDF somehow were to persuade the bean counters and obtain KC30 then Treasury/NZG may say that's it (for strategic airlift) and further acquisitions of ramp capable aircraft (A400M, C2 etc) won't be supported.
So suggest NZDF is actually thinking "strategically" (long term) for their strategic airlift i.e. acquire the A321 (box ticked for company troop transport/VIP) ... then when the Army finalises its future force structure it can make a case for larger ramp capability aircraft type. Well, that's what I b***** hope they are doing!
But back to your point of joint ANZAC capability. I agree and IMO we are not doing enough. I think attention needs to turn to better address RNZAF joint capability (with RAAF). I can accept the reality that currently the NZG priority #1 is sorting out the Army to be interoperable with the Australian Army (and even then the NZ Army is limited in its broad capabilities in comparison - how will this be addressed?), this takes us up to 2030 roughly. Secondly I can accept the reality is that the next NZG priority #2, from a funding perspective, is the RNZN (that takes us up to the mid-2030's).
*1. I would suggest that the 3rd priority (has to be, alas in terms of the aforementioned funding timelines) needs to then turn to Air capabilities including standing up fast air (primarily for maritime and airspace defence of NZ's Realm first before considering further expansion for Indo/Asia expeditionary), increased strategic/tactical airlift and theatre (helo) capabilities and increased manned/unmanned long-range air surveillance. All of this to allow true operational "concurrency", which will be critical in coming years. So from a realist funding perspective that's post 2035 (if we view it through the current lens of funding Army then Navy) ... except to say that small increments could start sooner (from post 2027 i.e. when the next defence assessment is due) because the advantage the RNZAF can bring to the table (to assist adding joint capability value with the RAAF) is that they already have certain interoperable capabilities that could be "easily" expanded upon alot quicker eg particularly P-8, C130J. RNZAF appears to be funded to have 1.5 aircrews for operational capabilities so expansion of personnel to support some early incremental expansion (C130, P8) should be achievable over a relatively short timeline.
In this era of the proliferation of uncrewed aerial craft production and the design of long range/armed UAV variants, plus with our immediate maritime regions under threat surely it is nearing the time to address the re-building of air and ground crew skillsets to operate fast air. Again with the priorities focused on Army and Navy fleet renewal we won't be able to afford "doing everything at once" (acquire F-35, now, as an example). But what we can afford is to acquire or lease some second hand type (for a relatively small pittance) to start qualifying a small number personnel (a cadre of future instructors for the post-2035 scenario - which may be a 6th Gen acquisition by then anyway). Training could be contracted in by the many private international companies specialising in this role. We currently have a Foreign Minister who is on excellent terms with his US Administration's Secretary of State counterpart, we have a Defence Minister who has managed to persuade her Cabinet colleagues to support defence initiatives and budget increases, we have a PM (and Finance Minister) who are well attuned to the connection of international trade and security (judging by their comments on these matters) and we have two Coalition support party's that are pro-defence. Has there been a better time in recent generations to bring things together? All we can do as "people" is to talk to our MP's and inform the next defence review call for feedback and just push it out there. I'm always (pleasantly) surprised when the MSM periodically brings back this topic when questioning the politicians. It's the missing link for a credible nation and provides a key enabler to "join-up" Govt planning going towards defending NZ's Maritime domain interests. And just as importantly it gives credibility to NZ's notions to work collaboratively with Australia. So why not?
