NZDF General discussion thread

[Aluminium Hail]

If it is not common for countries of NZ size to have a civilian type for transport roles then how common would it be for a country with no fast jets to have large aerial refueling aircraft?

I mean yes, they would be a useful asset to share with others but what purpose would they serve NZ? Top up a herc or P-8 from time to time?

If the expectation is as a force multiplier for Aus and/or others then there would need to be a solid agreement on availability (NATO like?). After all, it was pointed out earlier we wouldn't even let our national airline work with the ADF in Iraq 2, so what happens if the RAAF plans to have a shared capability available and NZ gets cold feet. We have not proven to be the most reliable of partners over the last 50 odd years.

I personally think a C-2 or A400M capability in addition to the A321 and C-130 would form a very well rounded and sized transport fleet. But I don't see that happening either.

 

[RetirementIsGood]

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.

I'm fairly sure that even with under wing tanks, a C-130J still can't do Christchurch -> On top McMurdo, socked in can't land -> Christchurch, the crew still have a point of no return go/no go decision. I asked earlier (September 2024, in the RNZAF thread here) and nobody said it was doable.

 

[Todjaeger]

I'm fairly sure that even with under wing tanks, a C-130J still can't do Christchurch -> On top McMurdo, socked in can't land -> Christchurch, the crew still have a point of no return go/no go decision. I asked earlier (September 2024, in the RNZAF thread here) and nobody said it was doable.

You might be correct, this linked article does not specifically state which NZ airfield the C-130J took off from, or where they landed on the return flight. However, the article also did mention a team being based out of Harewood Terminal in Christchurch that is responsible for moving passengers and cargo on a variety of RNZAF and USAF flights to Antarctica.

 

[recce.k1]

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?

 

[ADMk2]

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)?

Yeah and I have been digging and can find no evidence of any program to integrate JSM onto the P-8A anyway, not even in Norway… Now that could change next week of course, but atm if you want to put a strike missile on your P-8A’s, it’s going to have to be a USN led program, which means Harpoon or LRASM.

One would hope that if NZ are going to do this seriously, than they don’t just settle for a quick and easy Harpoon installation, they do it properly and go with LRASM.

There are even some nifty little variants of LRASM that come with most of the capability of JASSM-ER (and also vice versa - JASSM-ER that comes with LRASM capability…) so NZ could get back into the long ranged land strike game with the same weapon, if they were, er, game…

 

[Rob c]

Yeah and I have been digging and can find no evidence of any program to integrate JSM onto the P-8A anyway, not even in Norway… Now that could change next week of course, but atm if you want to put a strike missile on your P-8A’s, it’s going to have to be a USN led program, which means Harpoon or LRASM.

One would hope that if NZ are going to do this seriously, than they don’t just settle for a quick and easy Harpoon installation, they do it properly and go with LRASM.

There are even some nifty little variants of LRASM that come with most of the capability of JASSM-ER (and also vice versa - JASSM-ER that comes with LRASM capability…) so NZ could get back into the long ranged land strike game with the same weapon, if they were, er, game…

The only problem I have is our lack of platforms to make the option realy effective. Once the P8's are in their maintanance cycle it is likely that we will have only 2or 3 available and the frigates maybe one. Not much of a deterant as portrade by the goverment.

 

[ADMk2]

The only problem I have is our lack of platforms to make the option realy effective. Once the P8's are in their maintanance cycle it is likely that we will have only 2or 3 available and the frigates maybe one. Not much of a deterant as portrade by the goverment.

No, a single aircraft of any type short of a B-21A or larger isn’t going to deliver “much” strike. At best the RNZAF by itself might be able to sortie 2x P-8A aircraft on a single strike mission.

With the (latent) ability to employ up to 4x long range strike weapons (LRASM / JASSM-ER for simplicity sake) per aircraft though the ability extends to 8x stand-off precision strike weapons, not counting what RNZN or the New Zealand Army or allied capability might be able to contribute to the strike depending of course on a whole host of options, decisions, contingencies, geographical realities and so on.

But up to 8x standoff missiles might very well be sufficient to target a specific threat to NZ. Say a bomber detachment parked in a South Pacific Island, or a maritime taskforce of the sort we saw transit the Tasman sea in early 2025, or a mobile missile battery parked somewhere within range of NZ or one of her allies or deployed forces somewhere.

There might not be a great spread of capability but that capability as sparse as it may be, may still be enough to achieve effects that may well serve NZ’s interests AND it adds an undeniable factor that complicates an enemy’s plans. It may not quite be an A2/AD level of capability (though with some prudent additional investment in years to come, it might just be…) but that doesn’t mean it isn’t useful.

I know some seem to think that if you can’t fire 50-100 standoff weapons on a strike mission, then it’s all but pointless even considering the idea, but we have seen and continue to see great operational results in conflicts today where half a dozen or so missiles / weapons achieve effects vastly out of proportion to the assumed level of capability.

A P-8A / LRASM - JASSM-ER combination is going to have a massive range ring - I would suggest somewhere in the vicinity of 3000 + kilometres. It’s mere presence in an Orbat is going to create planning headaches for any potential attacker and that may well be it’s greatest asset. The overall amount of capability may not be great, but the amount of capability that does exist will be potent if this idea goes ahead and can’t easily be ignored.

 

[Rob c]

The main problem with the low numbers is that with only a small number of missiles launched, modern countermeasures and defences are very likely to be able to defeat any attack that is not simultaneous and multi directional enough to overwhelm the defences of your target.

 

[Todjaeger]

The main problem with the low numbers is that with only a small number of missiles launched, modern countermeasures and defences are very likely to be able to defeat any attack that is not simultaneous and multi directional enough to overwhelm the defences of your target.

TBH we do not really know just how well an AShM or LACM like LRASM or JASSM (or any of the other variants of AGM-158) will really perform. This in part is due to measures designed into the missiles to make them have reduced signatures, beyond how much smaller a cruise missile signature normally is when compared with the launching aircraft. Further, given who/what the potential targets would likely be in the Indo-Pacific, we do not really know just how well the most advanced defensive systems will actually perform.

There is also the very real potential for joint, multi-national strikes launched at specific targets from multiple directions timed so that strike packages arrive at the target(s) at the same time. Imagine the havoc which could be wrought by having USAF, USN, USMC, RAAF and RNZAF aircraft all launching AGM-158C LRASM's at a hostile TF in the Pacific. Especially if beneath the water's surface, there was a USN or RAN sub with Mk 48's just waiting for the TF escorts to get distracted.

BTW this does not just apply to RNZAF aircraft, but would also apply to RNZN frigates if they get armed with something like NSM.

If NZ does start actually arming aircraft and warships with such missiles, even though the numbers will almost certainly never be very many, they can actually make a difference.

 

[ADMk2]

TBH we do not really know just how well an AShM or LACM like LRASM or JASSM (or any of the other variants of AGM-158) will really perform. This in part is due to measures designed into the missiles to make them have reduced signatures, beyond how much smaller a cruise missile signature normally is when compared with the launching aircraft. Further, given who/what the potential targets would likely be in the Indo-Pacific, we do not really know just how well the most advanced defensive systems will actually perform.

There is also the very real potential for joint, multi-national strikes launched at specific targets from multiple directions timed so that strike packages arrive at the target(s) at the same time. Imagine the havoc which could be wrought by having USAF, USN, USMC, RAAF and RNZAF aircraft all launching AGM-158C LRASM's at a hostile TF in the Pacific. Especially if beneath the water's surface, there was a USN or RAN sub with Mk 48's just waiting for the TF escorts to get distracted.

BTW this does not just apply to RNZAF aircraft, but would also apply to RNZN frigates if they get armed with something like NSM.

If NZ does start actually arming aircraft and warships with such missiles, even though the numbers will almost certainly never be very many, they can actually make a difference.

Absolutely and while it’s a different environment completely, JASSM missile variants have performed flawlessly in strikes in both Syria and Iran, along with the US’s notably stringent testing regime, I feel confident in suggesting their most current missile systems (that we know of) are “up to the job”.

Of course nothing is perfect, and there is nothing like combat to expose flaws in capability, but I seriously doubt these weapons in particular aren’t capable in their designated roles, if not world leading…

 

[ADMk2]

The main problem with the low numbers is that with only a small number of missiles launched, modern countermeasures and defences are very likely to be able to defeat any attack that is not simultaneous and multi directional enough to overwhelm the defences of your target.

Overwhelming defences is certainly one way of achieving a tactical goal, but it isn’t the only one. Slipping in under the radar (literally) and sneakily attacking is also a proven and demonstrably effective technique. I’d suggest this is clearly the intent behind the low observable, passive seeker equipped JASSM series and variants…

In which case if effective, relatively few missiles may be required to achieve significant tactical effects…

 

[Todjaeger]

Overwhelming defences is certainly one way of achieving a tactical goal, but it isn’t the only one. Slipping in under the radar (literally) and sneakily attacking is also a proven and demonstrably effective technique. I’d suggest this is clearly the intent behind the low observable, passive seeker equipped JASSM series and variants…

In which case if effective, relatively few missiles may be required to achieve significant tactical effects…

Come to think of it, the RNZAF could also start fielding Rapid Dragon pallets for their C-130J's, assuming both the US and the successive Kiwi gov'ts agree. A set of Rapid Dragon pallets for a Kiwi C-130J could enable an airlifter to launch a dozen AGM-158 missiles, and the potential reach of the aircraft and missiles would be quite long.

OTOH this might be too much offensive capability for some in gov't to accept.