NZDF General discussion thread

spoz

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
To an outsider, it seems like bland b-s, complete with plenty of ways of getting out of actually doing anything, I’m afraid. Typical of the approach of many governments in the western democracies over the past 30 years, where the approach has seemed to have been the more studies we can do the better, we might find a way out of doing anything concrete. And, if you don’t like the outcome of the first study, commission another.
 

Rob c

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
A short note, the DCP clearly said that the main function of the NZDF is to defend NZ and the region. There is very little in it that will enable us to do this and they go and spend $700m on 2 airliners which can do nothing for our defence that could not be done with airline tickets or charter of aircaft.
In my opinion, a lot of talk with little substance as they don't want to spend what is neccessary to achieve a viable defence force.
 
Charter aircraft are not just lying around waiting for a job. If you are suggesting Air NZ for these tasks, they can't even get the engines to fly the commercial work they want to do. Even if they did have the full fleet available they wouldn't pull a plane off a scheduled flight to do a government charter. Therefore, they or someone else would have to go out and buy a dedicated plane (planes) for the job. This would have a significant cost which NZ government would have to pay for one way or another. And after that you would still have a civilian aircraft and crew that could do less than the military crew can be asked/ordered to do.

Virtually every developed nation has civilian style aircraft for these sorts of jobs.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Virtually every developed nation has civilian style aircraft for these sorts of jobs.
Not really, at least not if one is talking about developed nations with populations approximately the same as New Zealand. Of those that do have some sort of civilian transport for airlift/VIP functions, it appears that most of these aircraft are smaller business jets rather than civilian airliners.

If NZ were committing to getting MRTT and then actually using them as such, then spending coin on civilian airliners again would IMO have some justification. OTOH if not, then it seems more like a vanity project.
 

chis73

Active Member
Charter aircraft are not just lying around waiting for a job. If you are suggesting Air NZ for these tasks, they can't even get the engines to fly the commercial work they want to do. Even if they did have the full fleet available they wouldn't pull a plane off a scheduled flight to do a government charter. Therefore, they or someone else would have to go out and buy a dedicated plane (planes) for the job. This would have a significant cost which NZ government would have to pay for one way or another. And after that you would still have a civilian aircraft and crew that could do less than the military crew can be asked/ordered to do.

Virtually every developed nation has civilian style aircraft for these sorts of jobs.

Ahem, perhaps you don't remember this incident from 2007, which caused some controversy at the time. Air NZ provided charter flights for the ADF to Iraq & Afghanistan. So, it would appear that there are/were enough commercial aircraft around to do these kind of jobs.

Also, just as an aside, the DCP was published some months ago (April 2025). I think the original poster may have got mixed up with the Defence Industry Strategy, which was released this week (link).
 

Rob c

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Virtually every developed nation has civilian style aircraft for these sorts of jobs.
The point I was making is that there is a hell of a lot of things we could be spending the money on that will help in our defence ahead of 2 airliners which won't. We are so far behind the 8 ball in having a genuine defence ability, that buying something these aircraft does seem like a vanity project. During my service time we were transported by C130 and even survived 13 hours Darwin to Ohakea more than once direct with no ill effects. Maybe a few more herc's would be better and more flexible.
 
These are all fair points and I had a response written about availability and what not. But instead I'll just say, a few years back I bought a trailer. It would have been cheaper in the short to medium term to rent one when I needed it but it is really handy to have it at a moments notice and for as long as i want, I can lend it to friends (which can earn brownie points), and sometimes I even use it in a way that the manufacturer or rental company would not approve of. All in all it was a good purchase despite the initial and ongoing costs.

(I use this ananogy in the knowledge that a trailer is more comparable to a herc than an A321xlr but anyhow)
 

recce.k1

Well-Known Member
For myself, some points are:

- short term fitting of presumably ASM to ANZAC/P-8 upto 2028 $300m
Been noticing that Kiwi defence and security analysts suggesting acquiring LRASM for the RNZAF P-8A's and Kongsberg NSM for the RNZN ANZAC FFH's. As this aligns with our allies and development/integration being carried out on these platforms.

USN P-8 and LRASM (AGM-158C-3) integration testing continues throughout 2025 and once it is operational, if the NZG can gain USG approval to acquire this capability I wonder how many years it would take considering both production timeframes and prioritisation for the USN and its closest allies needing this capability to counter threats that are literally on their doorstep (ASEAN and NATO)?

So whilst we (potentially) wait in the queue I wonder if Defence is considering acquiring an interim capability ASAP such as Harpoon for the P-8A's? Yes, Harpoon is deemed to be outdated somewhat, is of a lesser capability and being superseded by LRASM, but the fact is it is still in service with our allies and could likely be made available quicker.

Critically it will allow NZDF personnel to gain valuable experience in handling and operating with this munition type in the interim. Secondly it means NZ P-8's could provide a response (deterrence) against "unfriendly" ships.

Even if an earlier variant could be made available (if not from the US then facilitated by them from another friendly offloading them - as how the US provided the RNZAF their initial batch of AGM-65 Maverick's from Jordan in the past) let's use this time we have productively.

For the ANZAC's I would assume NSM would be relatively quick to acquire (judging by other nations acquiring the type) but if that's not the case then the RNZN ANZAC's are apparently FFBNW Harpoon launch capability (with space and weight reserved) and if our Trans-Tasman neighbors no longer need their launchers from their decommissioned ANZAC's then that might be a potentially quick alternative solution, particularly if NZ signs up to acquiring NSM from Australia's sovereign NSM production facilities post 2027/2028.
 

recce.k1

Well-Known Member
A short note, the DCP clearly said that the main function of the NZDF is to defend NZ and the region. There is very little in it that will enable us to do this and they go and spend $700m on 2 airliners which can do nothing for our defence that could not be done with airline tickets or charter of aircaft.
In my opinion, a lot of talk with little substance as they don't want to spend what is neccessary to achieve a viable defence force.
Well we are talking about $700m from an additional spending pool of $12b (over and above the OpEx baseline) ... that leaves an additional $11.3b to spend on milspec over the next four years. Just sayin' ;)
 
Last edited:

recce.k1

Well-Known Member
Not really, at least not if one is talking about developed nations with populations approximately the same as New Zealand. Of those that do have some sort of civilian transport for airlift/VIP functions, it appears that most of these aircraft are smaller business jets rather than civilian airliners.

If NZ were committing to getting MRTT and then actually using them as such, then spending coin on civilian airliners again would IMO have some justification. OTOH if not, then it seems more like a vanity project.
A true story ... in the early 1970's the GOTD first considered acquiring small business jets solely for VIP work to replace the VIP C-47 Dakota's of the time. So two small jets (such as HS125's or Falcon 20's) plus a single B737 for troop lift were being suggested. The then Prime Minister of the day Norman Kirk (and the Labour Party's last "working man" leader, who even built his own house when younger ... and before lawyers then the "professional managerial class" took over in later years) wouldn't have a bar of such extravagance especially when a Dakota was a lot better than his earlier modes of transport.

Fast forward to the 2010's the GOTD (John Key's National Party) considered acquiring a small business jet to complement the even then troubled B757's ... but again didn't go through because of perceived public backlash about politicians spending on "vanity" projects.

Personally myself I wouldn't class today's replacement of the B757's with A321's as a "vanity" project when their primary role is troop lift (apparently only "about 12 to 15 percent of its flying hours are used for VIP transport" according to the RNZAF).

I would though endorse a "vanity" business jet for smaller VIP missions (why waste a larger 757/A321 airliner when needing to transport a handful of VIP's on some occasions?), as it also means the larger 757/A321 will always be available for troop transport and at short notice too. And as a genuine replacement for the former VIP configured Dakota's and later HS Andover's that were never replaced in that role. Plus it could double-up as a multi-engine trainer for those moving into the larger jet operations. And simply because I think we as Kiwi's need to get over our notion of being "not worthy" as per the examples above! Win-win-win-win, surely ...
 

recce.k1

Well-Known Member
The point I was making is that there is a hell of a lot of things we could be spending the money on that will help in our defence ahead of 2 airliners which won't. We are so far behind the 8 ball in having a genuine defence ability, that buying something these aircraft does seem like a vanity project.
I don't disagree with your logic but let's not forget it was the RNZAF themselves that preferred long-range transport airliners over additional C-130's when they first sought the B727 then its replacement the B757.

Their reasoning appears sound - by acquiring a long-range airliner (for troop lift and VIP work) it frees up the C-130's for military tasking (instead of being diverted especially for VIP tasking).

The hourly operating costs work out cheaper i.e. in one hour the C-130 can carry half the amount of troops compared to a 757 airliner type and that same 757 airliner type can fly roughly 50% further. Troops get to destination quicker and the airliner type can then turn around quicker.

And as Aluminum Hail concisely points our using chartered aircraft carries risks - one cannot guarantee their availability nor can one guarantee them to fly to risky areas.

I would hope that the new A321's costs also include secured military comms and in this day-and-age, countermeasures, something that civilian charters can't provide.

During my service time we were transported by C130 and even survived 13 hours Darwin to Ohakea more than once direct with no ill effects.
Yes you are from a generation that was "built tough" ... unlike "those of today that never had to endure what we older generations had to" (that's meant to be humor!), like when we were all brought up in a carboard box in the middle of the road .... ahh such luxury. ;)

Maybe a few more herc's would be better and more flexible.
Now that's the rub and is the crucial point (IMO the issues about A321's is the distraction). The A321 were simply a replacement for troop lift/VIP. Nothing more than that.

The crucial point is that it is enduser driven, and to acquire additional C-130's (or A400M's or C-2's or whatever next generation) we need the Army to finalise what their force structure will be and its (oversized) capabilities that are to be replaced or acquired, that will require a future ramp-enabled aircraft acquisition to move these oversized loads.

One thing we do know is that the NZ Army is integrating itself into a broader ANZAC arrangement and we also know that it also has various mobile capabilities nearing end-of-life. We need to see some finality to work out how the broader NZDF will move them over air and sea as new capability projects.
 

Wombat000

Well-Known Member
It would be nice if NZ would get a few KC30s.
They have a Kiwi on the side but dovetail into the RAAF training, ops and logistics pool.
That’d be a meaningful contribution, and an argument validating more than 2.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
A true story ... in the early 1970's the GOTD first considered acquiring small business jets solely for VIP work to replace the VIP C-47 Dakota's of the time. So two small jets (such as HS125's or Falcon 20's) plus a single B737 for troop lift were being suggested. The then Prime Minister of the day Norman Kirk (and the Labour Party's last "working man" leader, who even built his own house when younger ... and before lawyers then the "professional managerial class" took over in later years) wouldn't have a bar of such extravagance especially when a Dakota was a lot better than his earlier modes of transport.

Fast forward to the 2010's the GOTD (John Key's National Party) considered acquiring a small business jet to complement the even then troubled B757's ... but again didn't go through because of perceived public backlash about politicians spending on "vanity" projects.

Personally myself I wouldn't class today's replacement of the B757's with A321's as a "vanity" project when their primary role is troop lift (apparently only "about 12 to 15 percent of its flying hours are used for VIP transport" according to the RNZAF).

I would though endorse a "vanity" business jet for smaller VIP missions (why waste a larger 757/A321 airliner when needing to transport a handful of VIP's on some occasions?), as it also means the larger 757/A321 will always be available for troop transport and at short notice too. And as a genuine replacement for the former VIP configured Dakota's and later HS Andover's that were never replaced in that role. Plus it could double-up as a multi-engine trainer for those moving into the larger jet operations. And simply because I think we as Kiwi's need to get over our notion of being "not worthy" as per the examples above! Win-win-win-win, surely ...
I recall some time ago I had sat down and ran the numbers available at time for the per seat cost for a RNZAF B757 flight from AKL to LAX via HNL and if memory served, assuming it was a full flight, the cost per seat worked out to ~$12k which at the time was not necessarily quite as high as a first class ticket, but more than a business class ticket flight between Auckland and LA. It is possible that Kiwi B757's cpfh has dropped since then (I would certainly hope so) but I would really, really be interested in seeing what the actual numbers and business case were for getting another civilian airliner for the RNZAF.

If 85% to 88% of the B757 lifts are troop lifts, how many flights is that normally, how many personnel are moved in total, and what are the typical distances per lift as well as the number of personnel moved per lift. Not to mention of course, what the typical costs per lift as well as cost per person on a lift. If it turns out NZ is regularly moving small numbers of personnel via the B757's, especially if the moves are between 'routine' stations like Auckland and Marlborough/Blenheim, then I would suspect that such lifts were being done to justify RNZAF ownership and operation of civilian airliners rather than the platforms providing any sort of real VfM to NZ.

As for the projected cost of the replacement project... that itself looks rather steep, given that market prices for the A321XLR suggest a market cost of ~USD$80 mil. Of course a new aircraft acquisition will be more than just the flyaway cost but still. Those type of numbers could likely be sufficient to purchase another pair of P-8A Poseidons, which can perform functions that civilian entities like ANZ cannot replicate.

Just a thought.
 

Rob c

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I don't disagree with your logic but let's not forget it was the RNZAF themselves that preferred long-range transport airliners over additional C-130's when they first sought the B727 then its replacement the B757.
I was working at defence HQ when the 727s were purchased and additional C130's was never an option, they were a vanity project of the then PM Piggy Muldon after he had to ask for a ride with the Australian PM. The aircraft were available at a very cheep price.
In the event of conflict in our region the tasking that could be for these aircraft would be easily carried out by civiian aircaft taken into service as has happened in the past.
Our defence force needs to be set up to defend us.
 
Last edited:

recce.k1

Well-Known Member
I recall some time ago I had sat down and ran the numbers available at time for the per seat cost for a RNZAF B757 flight from AKL to LAX via HNL and if memory served, assuming it was a full flight, the cost per seat worked out to ~$12k which at the time was not necessarily quite as high as a first class ticket, but more than a business class ticket flight between Auckland and LA. It is possible that Kiwi B757's cpfh has dropped since then (I would certainly hope so) but I would really, really be interested in seeing what the actual numbers and business case were for getting another civilian airliner for the RNZAF.

If 85% to 88% of the B757 lifts are troop lifts, how many flights is that normally, how many personnel are moved in total, and what are the typical distances per lift as well as the number of personnel moved per lift. Not to mention of course, what the typical costs per lift as well as cost per person on a lift. If it turns out NZ is regularly moving small numbers of personnel via the B757's, especially if the moves are between 'routine' stations like Auckland and Marlborough/Blenheim, then I would suspect that such lifts were being done to justify RNZAF ownership and operation of civilian airliners rather than the platforms providing any sort of real VfM to NZ.
Haven't looked into recent figures for the 757 so cannot offer any insights atm.

For some historic figures Michael Bartleet's NZ's Military Aircraft Purchases researched the the B727 acquisition in 1980/81 and states:

The 727s would also reduce the requirement for service personnel to travel on expensive civilian flights. For example, 1700 one way seats were booked each year on Air New Zealand flights between New Zealand and Singapore at a cost of $906,100. The same task could be accomplished by the Cl30s at a cost of $812,574. However, it would take 70 C130 flying days and this could not be accommodated within the annual task. The 727 could carry those passengers in 21 flying days at a cost of$427,820, which was less than half of what Air New Zealand charged. The RNZAF concluded that 'the savings in cost of operations derived from the acquisition of Boeing 727-l00Cs can be estimated with 164 confidence as considerably in excess of the $778,672 per year. .. and more likely in the region of the $lm'.
Now of course I understand this may not be comparable with the current situation (and NZ no longer has a permanent Army base in Singapore - although today NZDF personnel are scattered in more places around the world than back then), but I put it in to show that Defence research the numbers to justify whatever it is they may be acquiring to satisfy Treasury. Presume then that a similar exercise was carried out for both the previous 757 acquisition and the current situation. After all if Treasury can make NZDF save a few beans then they will even if that meant them not recommending acquiring replacement aircraft and using other sources instead!


As for the projected cost of the replacement project... that itself looks rather steep, given that market prices for the A321XLR suggest a market cost of ~USD$80 mil. Of course a new aircraft acquisition will be more than just the flyaway cost but still. Those type of numbers could likely be sufficient to purchase another pair of P-8A Poseidons, which can perform functions that civilian entities like ANZ cannot replicate.

Just a thought.
Yeah I also wondered about the cost of the A321XLR as it appeared rather high at first glance. I saw costs of US$80m to double that from other sources (US$129m or $US145m). Roughly doubling US$ costs gives $NZ (today US$1 = NZ$1.72) so based on the worst case figure of US$145 for two aircraft is around NZ$500m. No doubt there will be other costs apart from flyaway (training and some spares), presume will also include secure comms.

When NZ bought the P-8's the cost a few years ago (according to USG sources) was just over NZ$400m each. Probably a bit higher now as the NZ$ value is less and wouldn't be surprised if Boeing charges more due to increased labour costs and supply chain cost increases etc.
 

recce.k1

Well-Known Member
I was working at defence HQ when the 727s were purchased and additional C130's was never an option, they were a vanity project of the then PM Piggy Muldon after he had to ask for a ride with the Australian PM. The aircraft were available at a very cheep price.
In the event of conflict in our region the tasking that could be for these aircraft would be easily carried out by civiian aircaft taken into service as has happened in the past.
Our defence force needs to be set up to defend us.
Sorry poor choice of words should of said procured rather than preferred and I accept there would be a political angle as you state. Notwithstanding jets were first recommended pre-Muldoon as PM (but accept he would have pushed for them when he became PM).

As I say I don't disagree with your logic ... but don't think it's an issue to die in the ditch over so-to-speak i.e. I can accept RNZAF civ spec for the intended role in certain situations like this one.

Yes of course any military will want mil-spec first. After all that's their reason for being.

But from the $ perspective:

i) The NZDF could use their budget to purchase airline tickets to fly personnel around the globe and/or pay a charter company to hire an aircraft.

ii) Or the NZDF could purchase a 727/757/A321 and fly personnel around the globe themselves. This means their budget is instead "spent" internally by giving pilots valuable flying time maintaining their currency. It also means the NZDF acquires familiarity flying into various countries and so on. It also means the NZDF can assist flying their allies like how they assist with transporting ADF & PI nation personnel when required.

I also look at the RAF experience of contracting out their air refueling to a private company that operates the A330's. If comments on the UK defence forums are accurate then there are limitations as to when the A330's can be used plus there are grumbles that the costs appear higher than the RAF owning the aircraft!

To be clear there should be limits (of acquiring civ-spec) and I don't agree with civ-spec in other RNZAF capabilities (eg maritime surveillance, training, helo ops a la some other nations in certain situations), but using an airliner for rapid troop transport/VIP movements, to complement other existing mil-spec aircraft (C130 etc) and guarantee their tasking for mil-ops, is something I can live with.

I also think we are in this situation because we couldn't get the C-17's over the line to replace the 757's (Treasury kept resisting until it became too late when Cabinet appeared ready to sign off).

I would rather NZDF focus on larger mil-spec airlifters for the next acquisition projects (and let the A321 be - at least the pollies will be happy campers) and NZDF can now prioritise on the data to show that strategic airlift of large/heavy cargo and equipment now needs to be addressed.
 
Last edited:

Wombat000

Well-Known Member
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.
 
Most of the discussion seems to be overlooking what appears to be the primary defining mission use case, which was explicitly mentioned by Judith Collins at the announcement. That is Antarctic re-supply.
Yes there is a base requirement to lift ~200 troops and their personal equipment from Ohakea non-stop to destinations like Townsville, Darwin or Hawai'i for the annual exercise rotations, and at most one stop to other likely destinations. However the mission that defines the size and the payload-range of the aircraft is to be able to fly a typical load of Antarctic personnel from Christchurch and then either land on the ice at McMurdo field then take of & fly back to Christchurch again, or complete an in-the-air abort at the destination and return to Christchurch. No more 'point of no return' calculations and sweaty palms in the cockpit when the weather forecast for McMurdo proves a tad optimistic when they get there. IIRC, a B757 had to land at McMurdo in conditions well below legal minima because the alternative was swimming home.
That's why they chose the A321XLR, not the A321LR or A321neo or a B737MAX.
I'm not certain, but I don't think a KC-30/MRTT is capable of landing at and taking off from McMurdo - C-17s can but they're a different kettle of fish to an A330 in grey paint.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Most of the discussion seems to be overlooking what appears to be the primary defining mission use case, which was explicitly mentioned by Judith Collins at the announcement. That is Antarctic re-supply.
Yes there is a base requirement to lift ~200 troops and their personal equipment from Ohakea non-stop to destinations like Townsville, Darwin or Hawai'i for the annual exercise rotations, and at most one stop to other likely destinations. However the mission that defines the size and the payload-range of the aircraft is to be able to fly a typical load of Antarctic personnel from Christchurch and then either land on the ice at McMurdo field then take of & fly back to Christchurch again, or complete an in-the-air abort at the destination and return to Christchurch. No more 'point of no return' calculations and sweaty palms in the cockpit when the weather forecast for McMurdo proves a tad optimistic when they get there. IIRC, a B757 had to land at McMurdo in conditions well below legal minima because the alternative was swimming home.
That's why they chose the A321XLR, not the A321LR or A321neo or a B737MAX.
I'm not certain, but I don't think a KC-30/MRTT is capable of landing at and taking off from McMurdo - C-17s can but they're a different kettle of fish to an A330 in grey paint.
A potential issue with this being the case, is that C-130's are used by other nations to fly into McMurdo, which suggests that NZ could have opted for more C-130's to meet any potential airlift to Antarctica needs. In fact, the first RNZAF C-130J flight into the area was in 2024. From my POV, with only five C-130J's having been purchased, that is going to cause the RNZAF and NZDF problems down the line. Once the new aircraft start to approach their 'normal' mid-life, their maintenance needs are going to climb and likely availability will drop.
 
Top