Royal New Zealand Air Force

[Milne Bay]

Would C2 still be under consideration for a strategic replacement for our aging 757 given recent issues with them that might speed such an aquisition along?What of our current 757 ability, can they land on unprepared runways? Have we encountered A HADR deployment to the pacific were we couldn't use a paved runway? A few more years before we make that decision by which time C2 will be years in service, and maybe A400 M has its issues sorted too?

It wasn't chosen for the C-130 replacement so would be even more of an orphan in any role.
The A400 M is currently a very expensive (I hesitate to say catastrophe, but I can't think of a better word)
Common sense has prevailed with the choice of the C130J and I'm sure that a less risky decision will be made as a 757 replacement
MB

 

[milliGal]

Would C2 still be under consideration for a strategic replacement for our aging 757 given recent issues with them that might speed such an aquisition along?What of our current 757 ability, can they land on unprepared runways? Have we encountered A HADR deployment to the pacific were we couldn't use a paved runway? A few more years before we make that decision by which time C2 will be years in service, and maybe A400 M has its issues sorted too?

The C130 (both the existing H and new J model) is already capable of deploying to most areas of the pacific that we are likely to be called to for HADR missions so I don't think that is a mission that will be considered critical for the strategic air lifters (i.e. 757 replacements). I also doubt the A400M will be considered for that role. The A330 MRTT seems to me like the leading candidate for that role at the moment, and I imagine they will have converted the A330neo to this role by the time NZ needs make this decision.

 

[Rob c]

I don't think you can rule out either the A400 or the C2 from the strategic role as the in service date is 2028 which is 9 years away. A lot can happen in that time and both types sould by then have eliminated any technical problems they have. Additionally other customers would probably have been found. My personal view is that with the Pacific reset in mind that replacing the B757 with an airliner type would be a mistake due to there longer runway requirements and the lack of ability to carry larger types of equipment, especially our LAV's.

 

[MrConservative]

I understand that the preferred outsize load strategic capability requirement has been shifted across to the following projects in defence planners thinking:

Enhanced Sealift Capability
Introduction into Service – 2029
Indicative capital cost: $1b+

Additional Enhanced Sealift Capability
Introduction into Service – 2033
Indicative capital cost: $1b+

For example a modern sealift vessel travelling from DNB to Suva at 16 knots takes only 3 days.

One can't rule the A400M and C2 out but their necessity is somewhat waning in the eyes of defence planners compared to a few years ago. Are they really worth the significant cost to only be able to airlift a single LAV a strategic distance or a partly dismantled NH90? The Aotearoa will do all the outsized load requirements to the Antartica in early and late summer for the main research season. The C-130J-30 is much more capable than the old C-130H's.

The role of strategic lift is to get from NZ to a hub airport. If there was a HADR incident that needed a response a commercial widebody combi ala A330 / B767 variant will get us to that hub and the C-130J-30 will assist in that role, yet also do that last mile, and if there was an urgent requirement for rotary support a couple of AW-109 LUH (mainly Medevac and SAR) in those first 72 hours in the back of a C-130J-30 will probably suffice until Sea Sprites and NH-90's can arrive via Enhanced Sealift Capability a few days later.

Contrary to popular misconception their are a large number of long tarmac runways with ground handling facilities throughout the Pacific in all territorial jurisdictions but for the Tokelau - which looks as though it will now get something. (One would hope that they may as well build it with enough length to get a mid size widebody in and out of there if they had any brains). American Samoa, Bora Bora, Caroline Islands, Christmas Island, Cocos, Fiji, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Nouméa, Niue, Palau, Rarotonga, Saipan, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tahiti, Tinian, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Wallis and Futuna all host IATA approved International Airports.)

 

[Gibbo]

I understand that the preferred outsize load strategic capability requirement has been shifted across to the following projects in defence planners thinking:

Enhanced Sealift Capability
Introduction into Service – 2029
Indicative capital cost: $1b+

Additional Enhanced Sealift Capability
Introduction into Service – 2033
Indicative capital cost: $1b+

For example a modern sealift vessel travelling from DNB to Suva at 16 knots takes only 3 days.

One can't rule the A400M and C2 out but their necessity is somewhat waning in the eyes of defence planners compared to a few years ago. Are they really worth the significant cost to only be able to airlift a single LAV a strategic distance or a partly dismantled NH90? The Aotearoa will do all the outsized load requirements to the Antartica in early and late summer for the main research season. The C-130J-30 is much more capable than the old C-130H's.

The role of strategic lift is to get from NZ to a hub airport. If there was a HADR incident that needed a response a commercial widebody combi ala A330 / B767 variant will get us to that hub and the C-130J-30 will assist in that role, yet also do that last mile, and if there was an urgent requirement for rotary support a couple of AW-109 LUH (mainly Medevac and SAR) in those first 72 hours in the back of a C-130J-30 will probably suffice until Sea Sprites and NH-90's can arrive via Enhanced Sealift Capability a few days later.

Contrary to popular misconception their are a large number of long tarmac runways with ground handling facilities throughout the Pacific in all territorial jurisdictions but for the Tokelau - which looks as though it will now get something. (One would hope that they may as well build it with enough length to get a mid size widebody in and out of there if they had any brains). American Samoa, Bora Bora, Caroline Islands, Christmas Island, Cocos, Fiji, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Nouméa, Niue, Palau, Rarotonga, Saipan, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tahiti, Tinian, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Wallis and Futuna all host IATA approved International Airports.)

I'm no expert but yes I've also come to that conclusion. Frankly the Govt piXXed on the NZDF by not seeing sense & committing to 2 x C17 when they could and now we're faced with 2 options that I wouldn't rush into purchasing A400 (lemon) & C2 (operation & supportability not proven enough yet). Unless either option becomes a widely used & trusted platform by 2025 we shouldn't touch them... we've got too small a fleet to risk anything that may remain grounded more than it flies.

But really, even if we did have any of the above it'd likely be 2 aircraft. Granted the ability to rapidly deploy choppers by air to a HADR scenario is a sadly lacking capability but the need to deploy the larger heavy Army vehicles (esp. LAVIII) by air at short-notice has IMHO been well overstated in an NZDF context as plainly & simply we would never have the capacity to deliver them in viable numbers. By & large if it's not a short-notice deployment then we don't need to deploy by air.

A rapid Army deployment is likely to only be considered in a rapidly emerging conflict situation in the Sth Pacific and all we would likely plan to do in the first 72 hours (while RNZN is prepping the sealift component) is to deploy a P3/P8 reconn capability, followed possibly by a NZSAS reconn team who chances are would para-drop in & operate in a small area on foot to gather intel... they're hardly likely to be charging around in the open on potentially hostile roads.

This gives time for their SupaCat or Bushmaster to arrive by sea and along with that the LAVIII & other task groups arrive by sea. However none of this would likely be planned without ADF involvement, meaning they could be asked assist with heavy airlift if required. If no ADF C17 capability is available the NZDF & ADF would then co-ordinate their responses meaning the each would do as it always has and tailor their response to match available capabilities.

Same with HADR - very unlikley we'll go it alone - ADF gets the choppers in, NZDF gets the C130J-30 in with supplies & manpower, plus maybe a couple of light vehicles etc. The the RNZN follows with the real heavy-lift carrying NZDF choppers & vehicles, supplies etc.

As for land-locked operations, again it's about planning & tailoring the response to match available capabilities. The NH-90 can be deployed by RNZN sealift to a suitable point (port or otherwise) then self-deploy to the forward operating area. Again this is likely to involve a scenario that requires planning with allies so it will have a significant lead time meaning the need for rapid heavy airlift won't necessarily be an issue.

My point is yes heavy airlift would be extremely useful and give the NZDF another valuable option to choose from, but if they end-up with only a B757 'like for like' replacement as the FAMC strategic component then they'll manage. The key takeaway is not to rush into getting an A400 or C2 unless there's no doubt they'll be absolutely 110% reliable & supportable.

 

[ngatimozart]

I understand that the preferred outsize load strategic capability requirement has been shifted across to the following projects in defence planners thinking:

Enhanced Sealift Capability
Introduction into Service – 2029
Indicative capital cost: $1b+

Additional Enhanced Sealift Capability
Introduction into Service – 2033
Indicative capital cost: $1b+

For example a modern sealift vessel travelling from DNB to Suva at 16 knots takes only 3 days.

One can't rule the A400M and C2 out but their necessity is somewhat waning in the eyes of defence planners compared to a few years ago. Are they really worth the significant cost to only be able to airlift a single LAV a strategic distance or a partly dismantled NH90? The Aotearoa will do all the outsized load requirements to the Antartica in early and late summer for the main research season. The C-130J-30 is much more capable than the old C-130H's.

The role of strategic lift is to get from NZ to a hub airport. If there was a HADR incident that needed a response a commercial widebody combi ala A330 / B767 variant will get us to that hub and the C-130J-30 will assist in that role, yet also do that last mile, and if there was an urgent requirement for rotary support a couple of AW-109 LUH (mainly Medevac and SAR) in those first 72 hours in the back of a C-130J-30 will probably suffice until Sea Sprites and NH-90's can arrive via Enhanced Sealift Capability a few days later.

Contrary to popular misconception their are a large number of long tarmac runways with ground handling facilities throughout the Pacific in all territorial jurisdictions but for the Tokelau - which looks as though it will now get something. (One would hope that they may as well build it with enough length to get a mid size widebody in and out of there if they had any brains). American Samoa, Bora Bora, Caroline Islands, Christmas Island, Cocos, Fiji, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Nouméa, Niue, Palau, Rarotonga, Saipan, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tahiti, Tinian, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Wallis and Futuna all host IATA approved International Airports.)

I'm no expert but yes I've also come to that conclusion. Frankly the Govt piXXed on the NZDF by not seeing sense & committing to 2 x C17 when they could and now we're faced with 2 options that I wouldn't rush into purchasing A400 (lemon) & C2 (operation & supportability not proven enough yet). Unless either option becomes a widely used & trusted platform by 2025 we shouldn't touch them... we've got too small a fleet to risk anything that may remain grounded more than it flies.

But really, even if we did have any of the above it'd likely be 2 aircraft. Granted the ability to rapidly deploy choppers by air to a HADR scenario is a sadly lacking capability but the need to deploy the larger heavy Army vehicles (esp. LAVIII) by air at short-notice has IMHO been well overstated in an NZDF context as plainly & simply we would never have the capacity to deliver them in viable numbers. By & large if it's not a short-notice deployment then we don't need to deploy by air.

A rapid Army deployment is likely to only be considered in a rapidly emerging conflict situation in the Sth Pacific and all we would likely plan to do in the first 72 hours (while RNZN is prepping the sealift component) is to deploy a P3/P8 reconn capability, followed possibly by a NZSAS reconn team who chances are would para-drop in & operate in a small area on foot to gather intel... they're hardly likely to be charging around in the open on potentially hostile roads.

This gives time for their SupaCat or Bushmaster to arrive by sea and along with that the LAVIII & other task groups arrive by sea. However none of this would likely be planned without ADF involvement, meaning they could be asked assist with heavy airlift if required. If no ADF C17 capability is available the NZDF & ADF would then co-ordinate their responses meaning the each would do as it always has and tailor their response to match available capabilities.

Same with HADR - very unlikley we'll go it alone - ADF gets the choppers in, NZDF gets the C130J-30 in with supplies & manpower, plus maybe a couple of light vehicles etc. The the RNZN follows with the real heavy-lift carrying NZDF choppers & vehicles, supplies etc.

As for land-locked operations, again it's about planning & tailoring the response to match available capabilities. The NH-90 can be deployed by RNZN sealift to a suitable point (port or otherwise) then self-deploy to the forward operating area. Again this is likely to involve a scenario that requires planning with allies so it will have a significant lead time meaning the need for rapid heavy airlift won't necessarily be an issue.

My point is yes heavy airlift would be extremely useful and give the NZDF another valuable option to choose from, but if they end-up with only a B757 'like for like' replacement as the FAMC strategic component then they'll manage. The key takeaway is not to rush into getting an A400 or C2 unless there's no doubt they'll be absolutely 110% reliable & supportable.

I tend to agree as well, however I would like to see them go with the KC-30 / A330 MRTT option and acquire 3 of them. Such an acquisition will enable AAR of both the P-8A and the C-130J-30s plus any allied coalition aircraft. It would also give us a platform that is compatible with the RAAF and if we were to remain in lockstep with their KC-30 and P-8A developments we would be able to retain commonality. From what I understand the RAAF KC-30 doesn't have the strengthened freighter floor, but we could stipulate that for our ones. The KC-46 is Mr C's preferred option, however given the international situation, my belief is that commonality with Australia should be the preferred NZDF default for the foreseeable future.

 

[Xthenaki]

For helicopter refuelling will a KC130J - 30 be considered in the C130H replacement and if not can the C130J - 30 be modified for this role later.

 

[MrConservative]

For helicopter refuelling will a KC130J - 30 be considered in the C130H replacement and if not can the C130J - 30 be modified for this role later.

The weighting towards more strategic sealift capability as outlined in the DCP19 sees the requirement for A2A refuelling of NH90's becomes redundant anyway. NH90's will be deployed long range via the Enhanced Strategic Sealift Capability and not by self deployment.

 

[t68]

The weighting towards more strategic sealift capability as outlined in the DCP19 sees the requirement for A2A refuelling of NH90's becomes redundant anyway. NH90's will be deployed long range via the Enhanced Strategic Sealift Capability and not by self deployment.

Interesting I thought I read sometime ago that it was a desired secondary capbilty, someone posted the requirements sometime ago it was quite significant in the secondary capbilty list, but I’ve never been able to find it again

 

[Todjaeger]

One area that people have not really seemed to touch on, and is the reason I personally would be more in favour of a strategic airlifter capable of hauling out-sized cargo and not require cargo handling kit to unload, is the potential need for a rapid replacement/replenishment of supplies and/or kit.

Given the space and weight limitations, deploying or even withdrawing a unit, their kit and vehicles, all by air is really not efficiently feasible.

However, if there is an NZDF deployment operating somewhere that suffers the loss of a NZLAV and needs a replacement unit, it would most likely not be efficient for whatever RNZN sealift is operational then to be used to land a single NZLAV. Allied airlift might be available and able to perform the required lift, but then again it might not. Same goes for NZ contracting a commercial heavy airlift company (IIRC this is what the ADF did prior to purchasing the C-17's, and that contracting experience was part of the reason why the purchase was made the way it was).

Two things I certainly hope NZ does not do is firstly just a 1:1 strategic airlift replacement, IMO NZ should really purchase at least three of whatever is selected. Just buying two would likely be fine in terms of availability and training in the early part of the aircraft service life, but once they come due for a MLU I would anticipate NZ running into problems (again...) with only having two units in inventory while trying to meet maintenance, upgrades, and operational needs. The second is that I would not want whatever ends up getting selected to be only what most closely matches the capabilities the B757's have provided. To me, doing so would be the waste of an opportunity to add or expand capabilities which would add additional flexibility to the NZDF, and add value to NZ by being a more capable defence partner in potential international coalitions. The air-to-air refueling capability of an A330 MRTT or KC-46 come to mind, or some of the extra EW, ELINT and ESM systems the K-46 is supposed to be getting fitted with, etc. If all NZ goes for is a civilian airliner with a passenger and/or freight capability, it is really just replicating a capability which could likely be sourced to significant degree from Air NZ.

 

[Todjaeger]

Interesting I thought I read sometime ago that it was a desired secondary capbilty, someone posted the requirements sometime ago it was quite significant in the secondary capbilty list, but I’ve never been able to find it again

It might have been a capability "selling point" in the past, and/or a desired secondary ability for some users. Given that the NZDF does not operate any in-flight refueling aircraft I doubt it would have been a NZ requirement. Also, given what the operating costs and maintenance requirements per flight hours have been, I doubt that there will be any major efforts by the different NH90 users to enable such a capability. If/when the support issues have become more manageable then perhaps.

 

[MrConservative]

Interesting I thought I read sometime ago that it was a desired secondary capabilty, someone posted the requirements sometime ago it was quite significant in the secondary capabilty list, but I’ve never been able to find it again

Yes. It was one of the desirables in the RFI for the tactical component of the FAMC.

 

[Todjaeger]

Yes. It was one of the desirables in the RFI for the tactical component of the FAMC.

Really? Given that NZ lacks air tankers necessary for in-flight refueling I find that... interesting.

That or there have been other proposals for aircraft which were, pardon the pun, shot down, before they could really progress to having RFI's sent out.

 

[At lakes]

Was not the C130J plumbed for A2A refueling but not fitted with the necessary kit. The extras being as an extra customer expense

 

[MrConservative]

Really? Given that NZ lacks air tankers necessary for in-flight refuelling I find that... interesting.

That or there have been other proposals for aircraft which were, pardon the pun, shot down, before they could really progress to having RFI's sent out.

An AAR refuelling capability was sought on the RFI of both components of the FAMC.

To recap what attributes were sought in the FAMC RFI of 2016.

Strategic Component Attributes

Essential
- Military Component
- VIP Domestic and International
- Certified
- Upgrade Path

Desirable
- Antarctic Ops
- Large Heavy Cargo (NH90)
- Enhanced Payload/Range
- Self Protection
- SAR
- Austere Ops
- AAR
- ISR

Tactical Component Attributes

Essential
- Certified
- Upgrade Path
- Self Protection
- SAR
- Austere Ops

Desirable
- Antarctic Ops
- Large Heavy Load (NH90)
- Enhanced Payload/Range
- ISR
- AAR

 

[ngatimozart]

For helicopter refuelling will a KC130J - 30 be considered in the C130H replacement and if not can the C130J - 30 be modified for this role later.

I haven't seen any NH90s fitted for AAR* yet and we certainly would want to be the lead on that project because of the sheer expense. Off the top of my head I think that of the partner nations the French maybe the only ones who may be interested in such a capability at the moment.

Speaking of the NH90 I posted the other day in the German Navy thread, that the Germans have chosen the NHI NH90 NFH to replace their Lynx ASW helos. They already operate the NH90 TTH with the Heer (Army) and have ordered 18 NH90 Sea Lion helos to replace their navy Sea King fleet, with the first supposedly due for delivery at the end of this year. Maybe it's something that we should look at too with the Seasprites being replaced in 2028; marinising our current NH90 TTH fleet, acquiring further 2 - 4 marinised NH90 TTH for 3 Sqn and say another 4 for 6 Sqn to deploy on Aotearoa and the enhanced sealift vessel(s), and replace the Seasprites with 8 NH90 NFH. I would also add some marinised A109 as well.

With two sealift vessels we will have to increase the size of the rotary fleet anyway, because TBH 8 NH90 is not really enough now as it is. It would be expensive to say the least, however we would effectively be increasing the rotary wing fleet by 8 aircraft, plus what ever number of A109 acquired, that would give us a good capability set based on 2 platforms already in service within the RNZAF and we would be reducing the number of platforms by one. Something to throw in the boil up pot along with the pork bones and puha (bit like watercress).

EDIT: * As an aside when I was watching the videos of the 2019 RIAT, I saw a couple of C295 and C-27J with AAR probes attached like the A400M ones and the pommy C-130 ones.

 

[Gibbo]

One area that people have not really seemed to touch on, and is the reason I personally would be more in favour of a strategic airlifter capable of hauling out-sized cargo and not require cargo handling kit to unload, is the potential need for a rapid replacement/replenishment of supplies and/or kit.

Given the space and weight limitations, deploying or even withdrawing a unit, their kit and vehicles, all by air is really not efficiently feasible.

However, if there is an NZDF deployment operating somewhere that suffers the loss of a NZLAV and needs a replacement unit, it would most likely not be efficient for whatever RNZN sealift is operational then to be used to land a single NZLAV. Allied airlift might be available and able to perform the required lift, but then again it might not. Same goes for NZ contracting a commercial heavy airlift company (IIRC this is what the ADF did prior to purchasing the C-17's, and that contracting experience was part of the reason why the purchase was made the way it was).

Two things I certainly hope NZ does not do is firstly just a 1:1 strategic airlift replacement, IMO NZ should really purchase at least three of whatever is selected. Just buying two would likely be fine in terms of availability and training in the early part of the aircraft service life, but once they come due for a MLU I would anticipate NZ running into problems (again...) with only having two units in inventory while trying to meet maintenance, upgrades, and operational needs. The second is that I would not want whatever ends up getting selected to be only what most closely matches the capabilities the B757's have provided. To me, doing so would be the waste of an opportunity to add or expand capabilities which would add additional flexibility to the NZDF, and add value to NZ by being a more capable defence partner in potential international coalitions. The air-to-air refueling capability of an A330 MRTT or KC-46 come to mind, or some of the extra EW, ELINT and ESM systems the K-46 is supposed to be getting fitted with, etc. If all NZ goes for is a civilian airliner with a passenger and/or freight capability, it is really just replicating a capability which could likely be sourced to significant degree from Air NZ.

I'd have thought that planning for sustained deployment would allow for enough vehicles like NZLAV to be on the ground initially, with enough basic workshop & spares support, to allow the task group to continue ops in the short term with a handful of unserviceable vehicles. That would allow urgent spares (parts) to be flown in (C130J could do that) and for replacement vehicles to be supplied in 'swap-out rotations' likely best served by RNZN LPD bringing in fresh resources (personnel, equipment & supplies) from NZ to the nearest suitable port or secure offshore anchorage. For inland operations far from port allies may offer help where needed with air transfer (but no, can't be counted on) or maybe self-deploy (choppers and/or vehicles).

Yes agree NZ Govt should shell out for 3 x decent military spec strategic air-lifter and not a true B757 'like for like'. Yes A330 MRTT / KC46 would be good options if A400M & C2 don't 'cut the mustard' by the time the B757 replacement project kicks off. We need to add more depth to our coalition contributions.

Anyway I won't hold my breath that RNZAF will get the 8 x C130J-30 and 3 x <FAMC Strategic> that they ought to.

 

[Gibbo]

Was not the C130J plumbed for A2A refueling but not fitted with the necessary kit. The extras being as an extra customer expense

Here's video of a RAF C130J with a probe to receive, and KC130J we know provides tanking capability.

 

[ngatimozart]

I'd have thought that planning for sustained deployment would allow for enough vehicles like NZLAV to be on the ground initially, with enough basic workshop & spares support, to allow the task group to continue ops in the short term with a handful of unserviceable vehicles. That would allow urgent spares (parts) to be flown in (C130J could do that) and for replacement vehicles to be supplied in 'swap-out rotations' likely best served by RNZN LPD bringing in fresh resources (personnel, equipment & supplies) from NZ to the nearest suitable port or secure offshore anchorage. For inland operations far from port allies may offer help where needed with air transfer (but no, can't be counted on) or maybe self-deploy (choppers and/or vehicles).

Yes agree NZ Govt should shell out for 3 x decent military spec strategic air-lifter and not a true B757 'like for like'. Yes A330 MRTT / KC46 would be good options if A400M & C2 don't 'cut the mustard' by the time the B757 replacement project kicks off. We need to add more depth to our coalition contributions.

Anyway I won't hold my breath that RNZAF will get the 8 x C130J-30 and 3 x <FAMC Strategic> that they ought to.

Here's video of a RAF C130J with a probe to receive, and KC130J we know provides tanking capability.

The USAF C-130Js are plumbed for boom AAR as this photo shows.

Source: Lockheed Martin Delivers 400th C-130J Super Hercules Aircraft

So we can have an either or option and IMHO the boom option would be better, because it means that the fuel can be pumped a lot quicker and we don't have to worry about fitting probes to both the C-130s and P-8s.

 

[Todjaeger]

An AAR refuelling capability was sought on the RFI of both components of the FAMC.

Ah, the benefits of old age, one learns new things every day. Sometimes the same thing, repeatedly...

I'd have thought that planning for sustained deployment would allow for enough vehicles like NZLAV to be on the ground initially, with enough basic workshop & spares support, to allow the task group to continue ops in the short term with a handful of unserviceable vehicles. That would allow urgent spares (parts) to be flown in (C130J could do that) and for replacement vehicles to be supplied in 'swap-out rotations' likely best served by RNZN LPD bringing in fresh resources (personnel, equipment & supplies) from NZ to the nearest suitable port or secure offshore anchorage. For inland operations far from port allies may offer help where needed with air transfer (but no, can't be counted on) or maybe self-deploy (choppers and/or vehicles).

I would normally expect some degree of redundancy for a NZDF deployment, but IMO the devil would be in the details. If the deployment was a company-sized task group, I suspect there would be several NZLAV's and/or other main vehicles held as spares. If the deployment included an armoured ambu, that might be the only one in service with the deployment, with the same going if the downed vehicle was one of the engineering or recovery NZLAV variants. There are also other vehicles or kit in service, apart from anything NZLAV-based where due to either the weight, size, or both, could require a lift which might be too great for a loaded C-130J, and due to the out-sized load, could not be gotten to a local or regional hub by civilian air freight.

Being able to fly in some of the spares and parts would be a given, but that IMO would be insufficient if whatever caused the vehicle, kit, helicopter, etc. to be unavailable for service was something that could not be repaired in the field. For any of the ground vehicles, damage caused by an IED could easily be something requiring a rebuild or it be also just lead to the vehicle being written off because it would cost too much to repair. For a helicopter, this could be something like salt water intrusion into the avionics and wiring harness.

Having sealift to do 'swap out' rotations for deployed kit does make sense, since it could permit kit to be brought back to NZ or another appropriate location where the more involved depot-level maintenance and overhauls could be performed. However, I would expect these rotations to occur on some sort of consistent schedule since the initial port of embarkation would most likely be somewhere in NZ and it would likely take at least a few days to get everything loaded and then sail to the debarkation point. I do not foresee the NZDF having both sufficient kit, and sufficient sealift to provide a deployed task group the ability to communicate with NZ and requisition a replacement "item" and then be reasonably able to expect delivery of said "item" within 72 or 96 hours, etc when the item is either out-sized or in short supply, or both. I would expect NZDF personnel would make do the best they could with what they had available, but depending on the situation there would be at least a temporary loss of capability and possibly greater loss of personnel and/or kit until a proper replacement was available.