NZDF General discussion thread

[downunderblue]

I saw it mentioned earlier so I just reviewed NZ's 2019 Defence Capability Plan.

I love a document I can tear apart. Most of these types of documents like to say a lot (48 pages) without really saying much in a Yes, Minister kinda way, but you can analyse the document to identify priorities etc.

I first checked and the word 'Pacific' is mentioned 74 times in the DCP.

The word Antarctic is referenced twelve times.

The word Asia is referenced four times, albeit always with the joint reference 'Asia-Pacific'.

Rules based order is referenced 11 times. Australia is mentioned six times, (the UN three times) but the only other countries mentioned are:

• Fiji (once, but in the credits of a pic about fisheries patrol which tbf doesn’t count for much (Sorry Suva)).
• US and the UK (once each but in the same discussion about training with partners who also operate the P-8).

Nowhere is China listed anywhere in the document.

I also then checked Australia's 2024 National Defence Strategy and applied the same test, with the following results:

• 'Pacific' is mentioned 61 times, albeit in the ‘Indo-Pacific’ framing. When searching for the word individually, I found it was used 19 times within the 61 total;
• Antarctic is not referenced at all;
• The word Asia is referenced eleven times, however to be fair the term Indo-Pacific is in vogue now clearly and East Asia is really the lights flashing, big scary part of that Indo-Pacific remit., or at least that’s what I’d assume Admiral Paparo would say.
• Of interest, the following countries are directly referenced:
• China is mentioned 18 times;
• India is referenced 11 times;
• Japan, 10 times;
• New Zealand six times (albeit once only in a solitary reference);
• Russia seven times;
• ROK and Singapore four times each;
• North Korea three times; and
• Philippines and Indonesia, twice each.

I should also note that Australia's document has really cool pics and we all love a bit of war porn etc in any document so there is a tip for NZ.

Now they are not quite apples vs apples but it’s fair to say that the NZ document lacks a some ambition, is a little timid about mentioning any likely threats (for fear of upseting or locking people in?) and for me is completely looking the wrong way. The strategic focus is clearly NZ and the Pacific (and the Antarctic), without the blindingly obvious conclusion that the greatest threat to the Pacific and NZ will evolve from Asia (let’s put Climate Change to one side just for now ... even then China IS the worlds largest polluter (32.88% of world) three times over but I don't hear that fact in any Pacific leaders forum communique ... yes I digress, sorry).

I welcome some of you from NZ to read the AU documents if you haven't already. They IMO are realistic and incredibly valuable. They don't go to insult anyone nor lock a government into any specific action, but they do acknowledge the strategic deterioration and threats to our nations security. They are important documents and publically divulge the reality and challenges we now face as a country.

The starkness of the differing focus in the two countries is highlighted in the AU conclusions. In 2023 Australia concluded (and announced) that they no longer have the luxury of a ten-year window of strategic warning time for conflict. The AU 2023 National Defence Statement and Defence Strategic Review noted that:

• "A large-scale conventional and non-conventional military build-up without strategic reassurance is contributing to the most challenging circumstances in our region for decades.
• As a consequence, for the first time in 80 years, we must go back to fundamentals, to take a first-principles approach as to how we manage and seek to avoid the highest level of strategic risk we now face as a nation: the prospect of major conflict in the region that directly threatens our national interest.
• The most complex strategic circumstances since the end of World War II has demanded the biggest reassessment of our strategic posture in 35 years: the foundational thinking about the fundamental task of the Australian Defence Force and what kind of an ADF we need to perform it".

Does anyone here disagree with those conclusions?

To sum up. I think there is massive value in NZ publishing a more up to date defence strategic plan. Yes we hate documents for documents sake but the existing NZ strategy/plan is out of date, focused incorrectly and for me negligently wrong. This leads to political and policy indecision, ambiguity and the complacency where I believe you now sit, and it wont change until some truths are exposed for all to see.

If NZ made similar strategic conclusions as Australia did (listed above) and was open enough to say it, then there would be clear public safety reasons to increased defence expenditure and preparedness. The document could outline an appropriate strategy to counter any threat (area denial/ whatever or joint deterant etc), and calls for increased expenditure could be specifically targeted to meet the capability need required. The temptation to ignore (and not mention) ‘China’ will exist. I know many will think it will alienate, affect trade etc, but why on earth would anyone ignore the 200kg male gorilla in the room when their very co-existence, size/ capability, power structure and regional ambition is a clear for all to see. Given the first responsibility of government is to provide for the safety and security of its people, to ignore the existence of a big gorilla would be not only insane but near criminal.

Now you will still have politicians arguing one way or another, but to publicly acknowledge what we all know to be a massive issue will inform public debate, prepare them for spending increases and potentially force the arm of whoever is next in power to meet/ commit bipartisanly to that need. My contention though is the existing document is way out of date (was when it was published tbh), and to fix an issue you must first outline an effective strategy, declared direction and means in which to achieve that strategy.

Am I wrong here? We all know much more needs to be done, but until its said and decided (where you're at/ need to be), it’s too easy for politicians to sit on the fence and look the other way (not my problem etc).

 

[Rob c]

Recognising that we can not defend ourselves solo, we used to have a balanced force for maritime warfare operations in the early 80s with our Allies: ACF, 4 frigates, and a regular/reserve light brigade.

I disagree that we cannot defend ourselves and have pointed out in the past how this can be achieved. I would agree that this could be the case in a one on one conflict with a major power but this is extremely unlikely to the point I believe to be a non existent threat.
Forward defence would be the first option, however this in past history has failed from time to time due to the threat simply bypassing any forward defence that there is in place as happened in WW2 with the Japanese forward defence sites like Rubal being ignored along with the large amount of troops the Japanese had in Indonesia and Malaya and other areas. With the large expanse of the Pacific the possibility of simply going around forward defence positions is real so plan B has to include local defence at least until help can arrive. I do however support the idea of a balanced defence force similar to what was available in the 1980's with of coase changes to take into account modern developments.
Our low population density and spread out nature of our infrastructure help mitigate the effect of long range weapons which is helpful, but in the event of conflict we must accept that some suffering will occur.

 

[Catalina]

The 2024/25 financial year Vote Defence Force budget allocates $3,058 million to our three armed services under departmental output expenses .
38% to the army, 36% to the Air Force, and only 26% to our Navy ($1,168 million,$1,108 million, $782 million).

As a maritime nation New Zealand depends on our sea lanes of communication.
Our navy is provides valuable international service in Antarctica, the South Pacific Islands, and the Middle East.
Our navy is our only service able to project power, logistically support itself, and defend itself from missile attack.
PLAN warship's are increasing in number and size throughout the South Pacific.
Australia has announced a doubling of their navy.

What is required to increase our navy percentage of the defence funding so that instead of receiving the scraps of our Defence Budget, our Navy receives the lions share?

 

[recce.k1]

I saw it mentioned earlier so I just reviewed NZ's 2019 Defence Capability Plan.

I love a document I can tear apart. Most of these types of documents like to say a lot (48 pages) without really saying much in a Yes, Minister kinda way, but you can analyse the document to identify priorities etc.

I first checked and the word 'Pacific' is mentioned 74 times in the DCP.

The word Antarctic is referenced twelve times.

The word Asia is referenced four times, albeit always with the joint reference 'Asia-Pacific'.

Rules based order is referenced 11 times. Australia is mentioned six times, (the UN three times) but the only other countries mentioned are:

• Fiji (once, but in the credits of a pic about fisheries patrol which tbf doesn’t count for much (Sorry Suva)).
• US and the UK (once each but in the same discussion about training with partners who also operate the P-8).

Nowhere is China listed anywhere in the document.

I also then checked Australia's 2024 National Defence Strategy and applied the same test, with the following results:

• 'Pacific' is mentioned 61 times, albeit in the ‘Indo-Pacific’ framing. When searching for the word individually, I found it was used 19 times within the 61 total;
• Antarctic is not referenced at all;
• The word Asia is referenced eleven times, however to be fair the term Indo-Pacific is in vogue now clearly and East Asia is really the lights flashing, big scary part of that Indo-Pacific remit., or at least that’s what I’d assume Admiral Paparo would say.
• Of interest, the following countries are directly referenced:
• China is mentioned 18 times;
• India is referenced 11 times;
• Japan, 10 times;
• New Zealand six times (albeit once only in a solitary reference);
• Russia seven times;
• ROK and Singapore four times each;
• North Korea three times; and
• Philippines and Indonesia, twice each.

I should also note that Australia's document has really cool pics and we all love a bit of war porn etc in any document so there is a tip for NZ.

Now they are not quite apples vs apples but it’s fair to say that the NZ document lacks a some ambition, is a little timid about mentioning any likely threats (for fear of upseting or locking people in?) and for me is completely looking the wrong way. The strategic focus is clearly NZ and the Pacific (and the Antarctic), without the blindingly obvious conclusion that the greatest threat to the Pacific and NZ will evolve from Asia (let’s put Climate Change to one side just for now ... even then China IS the worlds largest polluter (32.88% of world) three times over but I don't hear that fact in any Pacific leaders forum communique ... yes I digress, sorry).

I welcome some of you from NZ to read the AU documents if you haven't already. They IMO are realistic and incredibly valuable. They don't go to insult anyone nor lock a government into any specific action, but they do acknowledge the strategic deterioration and threats to our nations security. They are important documents and publically divulge the reality and challenges we now face as a country.

The starkness of the differing focus in the two countries is highlighted in the AU conclusions. In 2023 Australia concluded (and announced) that they no longer have the luxury of a ten-year window of strategic warning time for conflict. The AU 2023 National Defence Statement and Defence Strategic Review noted that:

• "A large-scale conventional and non-conventional military build-up without strategic reassurance is contributing to the most challenging circumstances in our region for decades.
• As a consequence, for the first time in 80 years, we must go back to fundamentals, to take a first-principles approach as to how we manage and seek to avoid the highest level of strategic risk we now face as a nation: the prospect of major conflict in the region that directly threatens our national interest.
• The most complex strategic circumstances since the end of World War II has demanded the biggest reassessment of our strategic posture in 35 years: the foundational thinking about the fundamental task of the Australian Defence Force and what kind of an ADF we need to perform it".

Does anyone here disagree with those conclusions?

To sum up. I think there is massive value in NZ publishing a more up to date defence strategic plan. Yes we hate documents for documents sake but the existing NZ strategy/plan is out of date, focused incorrectly and for me negligently wrong. This leads to political and policy indecision, ambiguity and the complacency where I believe you now sit, and it wont change until some truths are exposed for all to see.

If NZ made similar strategic conclusions as Australia did (listed above) and was open enough to say it, then there would be clear public safety reasons to increased defence expenditure and preparedness. The document could outline an appropriate strategy to counter any threat (area denial/ whatever or joint deterant etc), and calls for increased expenditure could be specifically targeted to meet the capability need required. The temptation to ignore (and not mention) ‘China’ will exist. I know many will think it will alienate, affect trade etc, but why on earth would anyone ignore the 200kg male gorilla in the room when their very co-existence, size/ capability, power structure and regional ambition is a clear for all to see. Given the first responsibility of government is to provide for the safety and security of its people, to ignore the existence of a big gorilla would be not only insane but near criminal.

Now you will still have politicians arguing one way or another, but to publicly acknowledge what we all know to be a massive issue will inform public debate, prepare them for spending increases and potentially force the arm of whoever is next in power to meet/ commit bipartisanly to that need. My contention though is the existing document is way out of date (was when it was published tbh), and to fix an issue you must first outline an effective strategy, declared direction and means in which to achieve that strategy.

Am I wrong here? We all know much more needs to be done, but until its said and decided (where you're at/ need to be), it’s too easy for politicians to sit on the fence and look the other way (not my problem etc).

You appear to be confusing a defence capability plan (i.e. the rolling replacement plan for new kit), with the likes of defence strategic assessments. Here is the NZG 2023 Defence Policy and Strategy Statement which mentions "China" and "Indo-Pacific" possibly more times that you've had hot dinners this year?

Noticed in your replies to other defence and foreign affairs analysts on the likes of X you keep stating NZ only has a South Pacific focus, so I hope the above enlightens you enough to realise that NZ doesn't just have a South Pacific focus and it is looking further afield. There has been rapid change in NZ over the last few years publically acknowledging the CCP's conflicts with their SCS neighbours, the impacts on NZ trade and the need to assist international efforts with maintaining global rules based order. Perception wise repeating outdated perspectives doesn't help anyone (and same for many of us here, including myself) as it only generates misinformation and mistrust. As the old saying goes united we stand divided we fall.

As for also having a focus on Antarctica, so we should (as Australia does too). If anything this would be part of wider NZ-Australian Govt level discussions anyway when assessing the regions of mutual interest i.e. NZ isn't doing so in isolation. And particularly with the CCP building 4 new bases in Australian Antarctic Territory. I mean four new bases? Isn't that cause for alarm? Australian defence and foreign affairs analysts writing on the likes of ASPI's The Strategist or Lowly Institute's The Interpreter seem to think so. Whilst Australia (and somewhat NZ - obviously needs better resourcing) can largely interdict those passing both nations I feel there ought to be a better naval (warship/OPV/corvette) design focus. I don't think both AU/NZ have sent a Frigate down into the deep south for quite some time? There is a govt focus to have NZ new builds vessels with ice-stengthening (i.e. the recent OPV's, AOR & Sealift) but they lack comprehensive sensor systems for underwater ISR. There is a need for NZ to obtain a new OPV better designed for Southern Ocean duties - perhaps it is one area where the two nations could collaborate?

That and winter training for both Army's in NZ's ice and snow regions? I mean to test out new cold-weather designed land support capabilities, of course.



Pic source.

 

[recce.k1]

HMNZS Aotearoa on her recent re-supply mission to the NZ & US stations in McMurdo Sound.

New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) on Instagram: "Going polar HMNZS Aotearoa has been sailing the remote and unforgiving Southern Ocean for 16 days, and now the ship and crew are navigating the Ross Sea - just north of their Antarctic destination. Onboard, Defence, Science and Technology science researchers have been working hard, taking water and air samples and deploying floating devices to gather data on weather, temperature, wave height and environmental changes. With Ross Island in sight, the HMNZS Aotearoa is set to arrive shortly, greeted by a welcoming committee of local wildlife! LAC A Jenkins #Force4NZ #NZNavy #Antarctica #MilitaryShip"

2,146 likes, 5 comments - nzdefenceforce on February 9, 2025: "Going polar HMNZS Aotearoa has been sailing the remote and unforgiving Southern Ocean for 16 days, and now the ship and crew are navigating the Ross Sea - just north of their Antarctic destination. Onboard, Defence, Science and...

www.instagram.com

Yes the main NZ focus should be where conflicts are brewing but we still need to have other capabilities that can operate in extreme cold weather and rough sea conditions (as well as in the hot tropics).

 

[Gooey]

I disagree that we cannot defend ourselves and have pointed out in the past how this can be achieved.

Rob c, many thanks for your reply and thoughts.

It is indeed very interesting how the old Pacific Island campaign names are now starting to reemerge after a long time. Just like it was unimaginable in the 90s to think that USAF would not rule the future skies now, back then it was unimaginable to think that our Pacific back waters would be threatened by China.

That is why I believe we can't defend ourselves and will always need Allies. For Allies to be bothered with us we need to have a representative NZDF on par with the region. Even to reestablish a small but balanced maritime force, that can conduct modern operations against the PLAN, will require time and a lot of effort. Any other force structure is a waste of time and our countries young servicemen.

Without Allies, we will never have the resources for adequate weapons!

Just my thoughts.

 

[Hawkeye69]

The delayed DCP will when it’s released eventually give an insight into the future of the overall NZDF.

Minister Collin’s talks tough but at the end of the day talk is just that talk and politicians are very risk adverse when it comes to doing anything that effects their chance of returning to power. We have the current Government struggling to get the country going, record numbers of Kiwis leaving each week, cost of living still out of control and a PM that is becoming increasingly lost at sea.

The Government today annouced a 30 million tourism and infascture boost to woo tourists here which in turns boosts the economy but the public backlash online was very evident and when looking at the comments there is very common theme that people want more investment in health, education and housing and sorting the cost of living crisis.

My point here is it will be political suicide for this Government to invest 100’s of million or billions in defence spending, the public backlash would sink the Government and don’t expect anything in election year as defence spending in NZ is a dirty word.

 

[Gooey]

... keen to hear your thoughts on where and what to start with ...

recce.k1

Thanks for some very keen observations.

As a very average, former directional consultant for Transport Command and some experience in Kinetic/Non Kinetic integration obviously please treat this reply as just one opinion of many:
1. Any serious DCP needs significant resourcing and cross bench support
2. As Hawkeye69 says, political commitment is problematic to which I would add that indigenous national security appreciation seems 'limited'; however, there are some signs that the country is awakening to the worldwide strategic changes and the CCP threat
3. Short term: invest in people/infrastructure to retain & build up the NZDF; more P-8s; MH-60R; accelerated FFG program; grow 2 full battalions with Territorial reserves; FJ training acft (E.G., T-50/FA-50)
4. Medium Term: grow some mass for modern operations within an Allied JTF : F-35 for most efficient/effective national kinetic options, integrated with RAAF; more P-8s; 6 FFG (3 Hunter & 3 SEA 3000); 3 full battalions with reserves, including arty/AD/EW
5. ABM: v expensive; leave it to 'some capability' with FFG sticks/spears like Standard-2 and 6
6. AA/AD: v expensive, but start with NSW for frigates and potentially for army/P-8s; more, with arrival of F-35
7. Drones/Cyber/Space: important, but we can't do everything; best with an integrated ADF
8. Mass: Aim for active reserves to allow for sustainable NZDF
9. NZ must learn to stand close with both US and Aussi; ... ANZUS!; change anti-nuc law to allow subs and if required, power stations
10. This, including any operations, is going to be a long term project which will require resolve

 

[Rob c]

That is why I believe we can't defend ourselves and will always need Allies. For Allies to be bothered with us we need to have a representative NZDF on par with the region. Even to reestablish a small but balanced maritime force, that can conduct modern operations against the PLAN, will require time and a lot of effort. Any other force structure is a waste of time and our countries young servicemen.

Disagree on this, the reasons can and must be able to defend itself and that this is achievable as was the plan in the 1980's.
Firstly we will not be at war with a major power on our own, so in any conflict the opposition will have limited resources, that can be applied to NZ.
As you your self have said in the past the USAF ruled the sky's and over NZ that is what we need to do. As we have a 2000km moat around use this is achievable with a modest number of aircraft.
I believe that a balanced force is what is required as per the 1980's as putting all your eggs in one basket leaves you open to major problems or failure should the single shot strategy fail.
What must also be kept in mind is that should an attack occur in this area, then we will likely be on our own at least for a limited period of time until help can arrive and should an enemy manage to land in NZ and establish their air power, then we could find that we are put into the too hard basket in terms of being freed, for the same reasons that it is easier to defend NZ than a lot of people think.
The points in favour of using airpower as the primary defence is that it is effective, has good coverage and puts the least number of our young people at risk.
However this needs to be balanced with both naval and land forces.
Any forward defence that you carry out must be backed by a secure home base and keep in mind that your enemy will try to catch you of guard by doing the unexpected, not necessarily what you expect them to do, as the US found out at Pearl harbour. In other words while you may envisage fighting your enemy far away, you could easily find them in your backyard.

 

[Rob c]

Any serious DCP needs significant resourcing and cross bench support

I have my doubts as to what they will even come up with due to the limitations of most of the panels make up and a majority of members lack of experience in relevant fields and the desire of the current government not to spend money, which I am sure will have been transmitted to the panel.

 

[htbrst]

Prime Minister Luxon did say this morning he wants to get Defence spending as close to 2 percent as they possibly can” which gives an idea of the level of investment they are currently thinking:

Politics liveblog - 18 Feb 2025

 

[Armchair]

4. Medium Term: grow some mass for modern operations within an Allied JTF : F-35 for most efficient/effective national kinetic options, integrated with RAAF; more P-8s; 6 FFG (3 Hunter & 3 SEA 3000); 3 full battalions with reserves, including arty/AD/EW

just the three Hunter class in your list would get NZ a long way towards 2% of GDP.
As the Osborne yard is scheduled to build RAN DDG replacements (in the late 2040s) after 6 Hunters (first one of which is perhaps 9 years away from service) I would suggest that that specific acquisition would be a practical impossibility. Can’t imagine Australia would supply that design to a foreign yard. If Hunter instead means “Type 26” variant then I agree it could be done somewhere. Expensive and big crews but. SEA 3000 contenders seem worth considering (but a single class of undersea warfare optimised major warship seems sensible for RNZN).

 

[Hawkeye69]

First things first get the 757 replacement decided on and order placed. Then next cab off the rank would be the Seasprite replacement, again decide on the replacement platform and place the order, it would be prudent to ensure both of these defence assets are well progressed this year.

The next project is to revisit the SOPV and move this forward, Chinas growing presence in Antartica means we need a suitable SPOV and very visible presence down there.

The frigate replacement will likely be a joint purchase with Australia with the successful contender for SEA 3000, ideally 3x replacing both ANZAC and current OPV’s.

Then there’s the Canterbury replacement which should be relatively straightforward and an off the shelf platform, could the Otago OPV be converted to a dedicated hydrographic ship at a reasonable cost, worth looking at.

For me a glaring gap in capability sits in our rotary wing of the RNZAF, yes the A109 is an excellent platform for its primary role of training helicopter for both pilot and crew. The gap exists between the A109 and NH90, would a NZ Government be brave enough to buy a further 4x NH90 I am not sure, they declined interest straight away over the Australian ones. A safe option would be a few of the shelf AW139, these would be highly valuable for search and rescue and disaster relief work.

Off the shelf platforms for NZ will be safe options and will help our very risk adverse politicians.

 

[Rob c]

Prime Minister Luxon did say this morning he wants to get Defence spending as close to 2 percent as they possibly can” which gives an idea of the level of investment they are currently thinking:

Politics liveblog - 18 Feb 2025

To undo the damage that has been done by both parties over the last 35 years will take a lot more than close to 2%. Maybe enough to paper over the cracks, maybe. If they were serious they should have already started with programs to keep our personal. I also note that progress has virtually stalled on the $20b replacement program and the DCP.

 

[Whiplash34]

just the three Hunter class in your list would get NZ a long way towards 2% of GDP.
As the Osborne yard is scheduled to build RAN DDG replacements (in the late 2040s) after 6 Hunters (first one of which is perhaps 9 years away from service) I would suggest that that specific acquisition would be a practical impossibility. Can’t imagine Australia would supply that design to a foreign yard. If Hunter instead means “Type 26” variant then I agree it could be done somewhere. Expensive and big crews but. SEA 3000 contenders seem worth considering (but a single class of undersea warfare optimised major warship seems sensible for RNZN).

Yeah, as much as I like the capability of a Hunter Class or Type 26 equivalent… the cost and then the personnel to crew it could be a tough ask.

I personally think we should look at the Mogami Class (or upgraded Mogami with vls). Cost per ship is $370-400mil and only 90 crew per ship (Due to automation). Lots to like with this.…..

 

[Whiplash34]

What are people’s thoughts on flagging the 757 replacement with an Airbus 321 or a 737 and instead going with the dedicated military strategic transport like the KHI C-2?

Based on a direct replacement that does all of the roles of the current aircraft ( passenger / freight combo) - isn’t that going to wind up with us spending huge amounts of money to make, say a 321, with cargo doors an purpose built freight deck etc? Is that really the best option?

If we need to move troops overseas (I’m not sure just how often the 757 do this) or for the VIP flights - surely a planned commercial airline flight or (I hate to say it) but a lift from our mates could be sorted or arranged.

What about a 3-4 C-2’s and a leased business jet for VIP (at least until we can revisit and upgrade)?

I just feel like a commercial aircraft converted to 757 specs will end up not getting the same flight hours and will be a factor again with which the current 757 had issues with (I believe that is one of the reported factors… as well as a dwindling shortage of spare parts worldwide for the 757). Maybe it’s time to flag this transport / freight / VIP Jack of all trades with something else…..

 

[Hawkeye69]

What are people’s thoughts on flagging the 757 replacement with an Airbus 321 or a 737 and instead going with the dedicated military strategic transport like the KHI C-2?

Based on a direct replacement that does all of the roles of the current aircraft ( passenger / freight combo) - isn’t that going to wind up with us spending huge amounts of money to make, say a 321, with cargo doors an purpose built freight deck etc? Is that really the best option?

If we need to move troops overseas (I’m not sure just how often the 757 do this) or for the VIP flights - surely a planned commercial airline flight or (I hate to say it) but a lift from our mates could be sorted or arranged.

What about a 3-4 C-2’s and a leased business jet for VIP (at least until we can revisit and upgrade)?

I just feel like a commercial aircraft converted to 757 specs will end up not getting the same flight hours and will be a factor again with which the current 757 had issues with (I believe that is one of the reported factors… as well as a dwindling shortage of spare parts worldwide for the 757). Maybe it’s time to flag this transport / freight / VIP Jack of all trades with something else…..

Think risk adverse and hear the common theme from the Govt, communality with Australia, the C2 was never in the picture. Either 737 or A321 are safe bets and they will be off the shelf so no cargo combi alterations.

 

[Hone C]

What are people’s thoughts on flagging the 757 replacement with an Airbus 321 or a 737 and instead going with the dedicated military strategic transport like the KHI C-2?

What about a 3-4 C-2’s and a leased business jet for VIP (at least until we can revisit and upgrade)?

Maybe it’s time to flag this transport / freight / VIP Jack of all trades with something else…..

I believe there was an aspiration to get a couple of the whitetail C-17's, which would have filled the strategic airlift/oversized loads perfectly, but a combination of domestic politics and Qatar purchasing more aircraft than expected killed it.

C2 would be a useful, albeit unlikely option. Another would be the A330 MRTT. In service with 3 FVEY partners and Singapore, and able to carry passengers or pallets. In-flight refuelling would also be a useful contribution to allies, as well as extending the range of our own C-130J and P-8 aircraft.

Speculation aside however, the reality is that the GOTD wants a 737/A321 like for like replacement.

 

[Whiplash34]

Think risk adverse and hear the common theme from the Govt, communality with Australia, the C2 was never in the picture. Either 737 or A321 are safe bets and they will be off the shelf so no cargo combi alterations.

Rgr that. Soooo reduced capability if not modified. God ‘we’ (edited to clarify - politicians) are a bunch of lame ducks. We can’t go commonality with Aus because they’ve got C-17’s…and we missed that boat.

 

[Hawkeye69]

Rgr that. Soooo reduced capability if not modified. God ‘we’ (edited to clarify - politicians) are a bunch of lame ducks. We can’t go commonality with Aus because they’ve got C-17’s…and we missed that boat.

I think we should be extremely grateful we are getting a 757 replacement full stop, Minister Judith Collin’s kept going on about the costs of the replacements.