A step in the right direction but unfortunately there is not enough launch platforms to make it any sort of deterrent due to a significant number of modern warships being able to defeat any attack that we could launch.
Royal New Zealand Air Force
- Thread starter Lucasnz
- Start date
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Agree, although the pathway forward appears to be complimentary uncrewed platforms to build up numbers. So likely to align with what our allies develop and could be a significant increase in capability for us.
How realistic do you think this is though, in terms of needing secure data-linking technologies (ground, air and space), particularly in this part of the world and that we would have limited control of? Wonder if a better approach could be to stand-up crewed systems (fast-air) first? The key word in that article is "currently" (that it won't happen, as per DCP25), but that's not to say it won't happen in say the next iteration of DCP27/DCP29.
Finally I should have chosen my wording better and not writen that the Harpoon is to be "fast track acquired/interim" etc, ... it could be the case that limited numbers of said weapon are being sought (or "borrowed") for trial and evaluation purposes, to better inform the enhanced strike project's acquisition/resourcing needs, so will wait until there are more details released. : )
Last edited:
NZ can be threatened by both air and sea and a few air to surface missiles won't cover many possibilities. Secure data links for unmanned systems will be a problem in the event of conflict as what is secure currently won't necessarily be so in the future.
I'm interested by the earlier comments about the poor choice of the 321XLR to replace the 757s. As far as I'm aware a cargo only full fuel 321XLR could carry 16 tonnes compared to the 757 22 tonnes. With 120 pax the 321XLR can still carry 9 tonnes of cargo (not sure what the 757 would manage if the main deck was used for pax. So, for those that seem to think that the 321 is a poor choice can you explain how often the RNZAF need the additional 6 tonnes if using the aircraft in cargo only mode and is the 757 range at max cargo similar to the 321XLR at max cargo?
Last edited:
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
As I understand it, the A321XLR config that the RNZAF is receiving cannot physically airlift more than 100 personnel as it lacks the seating. Further, if some of the VIP seating is intended to also be used by aircrews as relief accommodation (necessary for very long flights) then the number of seats available for rapid personnel lift would decline even further.
Now it would be 'interesting' to see what sort of weights, volumes and size cargo could be transported, but the more I look at it, the less and less value I see from a military perspective. It appears as though the aircraft can move ~two platoons of personnel, but might struggle to also move their personnel weapons and kit, plus crew/support weapons, as well as sufficient supplies and munitions for anything other than a very short deployment or resupply once in theatre. It also would have issues trying to move larger pieces of kit never mind vehicles.
Looking at NZ participation in exercises like Pitch Black, the lift capability for A321XLR appears sufficient, but would fall far short of what was needed for Talisman Sabre 2025. Still looks to me like it was largely a vanity project.
So would a 757 with the main deck unavailable due to pax be able to lift this?
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
It was my understanding that the RNZAF B757 combis were able to swing between personnel and cargo airlift, with some caveats. For instance, there was sufficient room for 11 pallets but due to floor strength weight limitations, each pallet was load limited to ~2,000 lbs. Of course the lack of a rear loading ramp also required that an airfield or airport have cargo handling capabilities to load or retrieve gear via the cargo door. Not sure exactly how many cargo containers could fit into a B757, what size containers, or what the max cargo load limit would be. However, in a non-VIP passenger lift role, I seem to recall that the B757's could move ~150 personnel which is substantially more than the 80 + 20 VIP/aircrew config which has been reported for the A321XLR. The combi conversion also provided greater flexibility in terms of role and tasking, albeit still lacking capabilities of a dedicated military airlifter.
To date, I have not heard anything to indicate that the A321's the RNZAF are getting are going to be undergoing a conversion to make them into combi aircraft with a cargo door or a main deck cargo area. That would then limit the cargo handling capabilities of the Kiwi A321's to ~10 LD3-45 cargo containers, and possibly enable up to ~1,000 kg of cargo per container, though the limits could also be less depending on a few things. IMO what might be more important and more problematic from a defence perspective is the amount of cargo handling which would be involved to load and unload everything, all whilst likely being less efficient in terms of space and especially rapidly accessible space.
Take for instance food for the embarked troops once they get to a deployment area. Using standard pallet of MRE's in use by US services as a guide, each pallet has 48 cases of 12 meals for 576 meals and a weight of ~1,100 lbs. If broken down and repeated, one of these should certainly be able to fit inside a LD3-45 container and possibly even a second one. That would likely mean for an embarked force of ~80 troops, they could deploy with three to six days or rations, unless of course additional containers were dedicated towards carrying MRE's or the Kiwi equivalent. We still have not gotten into the space and weight lift requirements for a basic combat load of ammunition, crew/support weapons and their ammunition, unit kit, etc. One also needs to keep in mind that the individual troops are also going to have their own individual kit which require volume and weight, likely approaching 50 kg/personnel...
This is all why I have such a fundamental issue with a force like the RNZAF that keeps on going back to civilian airliners especially smaller narrow-bodies, for airlift. Airliners can be great for moving numbers of people form point A to point B fairly rapidly and efficiently but the capability really begins to break down when kit needs to accompany the personnel in order for them to be effective. It begins to collapse if/when outsized kit and/or vehicles are also required. From my POV as an outsider, with the RNZAF again buying civilian airliners for airlift, it looks like NZ is once again having the RNZAF replicate airlift capabilities already largely available from civilian commercial entities.
So, the 757 can carrier (in underbelly not main cargo floor if that is occupied by pax) more cargo than the 321 can carry in cans in belly with pax above - yes/no?
You seem to be intent on arguing a cause that has long since passed - to replace the 757 not like-for-like but instead revisit the C17 decision and a military strategic lift be that C2, A400, or KC390. Politicians (of all stripes) seem to have been clear they are not returning there and that even an increase to C130J numbers would be a stretch. Taking that constraint as a given, is the 321 the best replacement for the 757? I think probably yes as the likes of the MRRT is way too much aircraft for the need.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
TBH I cannot tell exactly, because I have not been able to access the exact specifications for the specific aircraft in question and there are some variables that I have not been able to determine the impact of, beyond how the aircraft performances might be different from 'standard' models follow mods. With what I have found though, it does appear that a B757-200 might be able to lift up to ~4,750 lbs more than an A321XLR as cargo in the underbelly hold though this number might be reduced by the weight of cargo containers used.
From what I have found, a B757-200 can carry up to 26,600 lbs of cargo which would be in the belly hold. Not sure if this number includes the weight of cargo modules or not, or how many and what type cargo modules could fit.
OTOH an A321XLR can normally carry up to 10 LD3-45 cargo modules, each with a max weight of 1,058 kg. However, apparently the empty weight of the individual LD3-45 modules can vary between 65 kg to 90 kg, meaning that the actual cargo capacity varies from 968 kg up to 993 kg. Assuming the RNZAF A321XLR's will all still retain the ability to have 10 containers loaded, that would mean a cargo capacity of somewhere between 9,680 kg and 9,930 kg, all of which is a bit less than a B757-200's cargo capacity which might be up to ~12,065 kg.
As already mentioned it appears that the passenger configuration that NZ has opted for with their A321XLR provides significantly fewer seats than the older B757's NZ had been using, so the new selection is less suitable for getting numbers of people and/or kit into or out of an area quickly.
This is what really triggers the question for me, "why does NZ keep following the same sort of replacement pathway for supposed strategic airlift?" I get that the NZG decision, regardless of whether or not I think it was stupid, has been made and is effectively final, but why do they seem to consistently pursue such short-sighted and/or inflexible options? Had NZ wanted to keep with versions of commercial airliners and exclude purpose designed and built military airlifters with cargo ramps, versions of the B767F could have been an option. Yes, they would have required some modification work to refit passenger seating and/or VIP passenger options, but would also certainly have provided much greater cargo carrying capacity and it would appear that the costs would have been roughly comparable. It appears that NZ is spending some NZD$700 mil. in capital acquisition costs for the two A321XLR and new B767F's appear to cost between USD$170 mil. and USD$220 mil.
All of this, when put together, makes it look less and less like the Kiwi purchase was ordered so that NZ could get personnel and/or material rapidly airlifted to/from where it was needed and instead makes it look more and more like the kit was ordered so that gov't officials would have comfy seating in gov't aircraft on official overseas visits and that the kit could then also sometimes be useful in moving other people.
The CDF has stated the XLR's will not be getting a combi config... and I suspect that means never (for the forseeable future). When the B757 were converted it cost something like $200M for the conversion (along with new RR engines and some minor other mods done concurrently). I dare say the cost of a bespoke XLR conversion would be astronomical so there is unlikely be any $appetite$ for that.
It's a real pity the XLR will have such low PAX capacity given that will be, by & large, their core role in RNZAF service ...116 seats includes 8 'board room' seats and a total of 10 allocated 'crew rest' seats (made up of seats in all 3 classes) that arguably will reduce the available seating capacity to as few as 98 outside of aircrew.
The B757 does some freight only taskings, the XLR will no doubt do the same but with a significantly reduced capacity & flexibility. So yes just a PAX aircraft but that will still afford the RNZAF options along with the C130J-30 ...just less so than the B757 currently does. The extra range of the XLR won't matter in all cases although it's certainly a bonus.
Overall no surprises really with the XLR ....basically it's a 'better than nothing' option given the DCP made no mention about the lack of capacity in milspec airlift capability.
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
I don't believe the NZDF see the reduction in cargo capacity (6t) as a major issue .... simply because any cargo shortfall, if required, could be addressed by dispatching a secondary A321 to accompany the primary A321 on the same mission or better still the A321 prime be accompanied by a C-130J, which provides greater carrying capacity and larger cargo types/sizes to be carried. At the end of the day it's a non-issue.
However the greater issue for the NZDF, which it acknowledges (and RNZAF aircraft scheduling), will be the inability now to carry palletised cargo ... meaning a C-130J would instead need to be tasked to undertake strategic (long distance) flights, thus impacting overall fleet C-130J availability whilst said C-130J takes a couple of days to reach eg, the continental US or Europe, then return. Although at the end of the day, scheduling aircraft availability is what air forces do, so situations should be managed.
If we look at the history of RNZAF long range transport passenger/cargo jet acquisitions (i.e. ignoring the proceeding war/post war propeller driven types ... and AVM Ian Morrison's apparent desire to acquire the C-141 in the 1960's when he rebuilt the post-war air force), planning in the later 1970's was actually for two second-hand 737-200's (not dissimilar to the recent project assessing the A321LR/XLR & 737 Max, although acknowledging these current types have better attributes eg longer range). As the project neared its final stages, Boeing was able to offer a better deal to sell ex-leased 727-100's instead, offering greater cargo/pax capacity and range. Boeing's successor to the 727 was the 757, which the NZDF also acquired roughly 20 years later to replace its 727's. Overall the 727 then the 757 long-range narrow body have been a success in RNZAF service (yes, putting aside the occasional breakdowns), in terms of functionality and the where they have operated around the globe.
I don't think it's a stretch to suggest that if Boeing had designed a long-range narrowbody successor to the 757, then the NZDF (as well as airlines and other air forces) would have been keen to acquire that type. Unfortunately Boeing didn't and we are where we are, now, with the choices we have just made, like many other airlines and air forces facing up to the same dilemma.
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Yes don't disagree with your assessment and when the 757 replacement was being discussed on these forum pages over the last few years I personally thought that the NZDF obtaining either long range wide-bodies (eg A330/KC30 or 767 mil-variants etc) or mil-airlifters would be the better choice (and was bemused as to why the A321's were being suggested as an option by some).
However .... background documentation gives us insights into the 757 replacement decision making process/criteria and once the option "type" was narrowed down ("Civilian Medium Aircraft"), which was essentially "like-for-like" then in my mind the outcome to acquire the A321XLR makes sense.
For one, the A321 slots into existing airbase infrastructure and it also slots into efficient Air NZ A321 maintenance/parts setups and it will be able to operate to secondary airports in the Pacific (that widebody's can't unless with limitations. Plus the outrage from Opposition pollies and media that the "shiny new" RNZAF widebody's couldn't operate in it's "backyard" would have been deafening)! For a narrowbody it has exceptional range - NZ to Singapore direct and NZ to/from Antarctica and isn't constrained by safe point-of-return limits. The latter is important for joint US/NZ collaborative efforts to support Operation Deep Freeze in the Antarctic, with USAF C-17's and C-130's hauling the cargo and RNZAF 757's/A321's transporting personnel and scientists (as well as RNZAF C-130 cargo flights). The importance to the NZG, supporting the USG with Op Deep Freeze, is taken incredibly seriously at high levels (it was not impacted by the ANZUS bust up in the '80's) and this is why it is/was a significant driver in the 757 replacement project.
Reading this 757 project documentation, in my mind (sure might be mine only ; ) and between the lines of the previous C-17 acquisition project documentation (albeit several years ago now as it is no longer online), there is a "conflict" with choosing either a civilian narrowbody, a civilian widebody and a mil-airlifter, particularly Treasury assessments, when the objective is to fund a direct replacement and not fleet expansion. The various types conflict with the military and whole-of-government tasking.
Perhaps the "easiest" away around this would be to acquire an executive jet for long range civilian/VIP tasking, thus allowing a 757 type to be replaced by a mil-airlifter or civilian widebody (A330/KC30/777 etc). Executive jets have been mooted several times, since the early 1970's to replace then then VIP Dakotas, former DefMin Wayne Mapp I think it was, suggested it was looked into in the 2010's and this current 757 replacement project (documentation) also raises the option of chartering or leasing an executive jet until the 757's are replaced. But these suggestions have been rejected by Govt (probably don't want to be seen having a "luxury" jet in a cost-of-living crisis .... but personally I think that's shortsighted, because if the RNZAF operated such a jet, which many other air forces do, perhaps they could also be tasked for advanced multi-engine training).
So IMO the NZDF are fully aware of this "conflict" and the next best option other than an executive jet type, is a civilian long range narrowbody, the A321XLR. For them = box ticked = also fulfils many roles that an executive jet cannot = move on ...
This clears the path forward, for a future project, to look at either a civilian widebody or mil-airlifter, when the NZDF grows to justify such a capability. The CDF said last December during Parliament's "Scrutiny Week" that they are planning for expansion (doubling/quadrupling), the question then becomes what triggers this and when? Alternatively this could potentially happen because of the Army's Plan ANZAC needs (once the Army finishes building up and finalising its equipment replacement programmes). I will also suggest that if the 757 replacement project adhered to its original timelines (late 2010's/early 2020's) meaning that said project had selected a replacement which would have been in service by now, that would have allowed the NZDF to progress a larger airlift capability now/soon. So "steps", the first has been taken, the next will follow ...
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
I also wish to highlight what I believe (sure, might only be me, again ; ) is another aspect about what is problematic about advancing a mil-airlifter at this point in time.
The ideal time to acquire a mil-airlifter (such as the C-17 back in the day or A400M etc), would have been as C-130H replacements i.e. like-for-like. If we look at the RAAF as an example, their C-17 acquisition came about (some 20 plus years ago) because they replaced two early model C-130 squadrons - 36 squadron then acquired the C-17, originally 4 then 8 aircraft, and 37 Squadron then acquired the C-130J).
For the RNZAF at the time, the plan was to replace the C-130H with the C-130J but a change of govt (1999) decided to give the C-130H a life extension programme instead and media coverage in the late 2000's suggested that they would then be replaced by the A400M (IIRC in the late 2010's/early 2020's?). Of course the C130LEP ran behind time (covered well here by various posters) meaning replacement was delayed.
The C-17 production line then shut down (resulting in a hurried attempt to acquire the C-17 Whitetails, years earlier than intended, by using a 757 replacement justification instead - which was a round peg/square hole situation).
The A400M turned out more problematic than envisaged (i.e. not fully operational as planned, for various other air forces), so suggest this may have seen the RNZAF turning attention away from the A400M towards to more reliable and interoperable C-17 back in 2014.
As the C-17 is no longer a possibility and there may still be some caution with the A400M, that leaves the C-2, a fantastic aircraft for sure which would look good with a Kiwi roundel on it, but one which no one else outside of Japan operates. This all poses dilemmas!
I would suggest that recent scuttlebutt suggesting that Boeing "might" resume C-17 production would have garnered some interest within Defence. Because not only would that type's interoperability and proven record be attractive, the timeframes to potentially restart production could well have aligned perfectly with a new capital project (aligning with the planned increases to defence funding). But again restarting the C-17 production line appears to be a non-starter and now it is also being suggested that the C-17/C-5 replacement programmes will be pushed out even further well into the future.
So that could leave the A400M, although our closet FVEY partner/operator would be the UK, half way around the world. Or potentially the C-2, with some perceived risk, although with Japan/NZ increasing defence co-operation perhaps Japan would be willing to smooth the certification process? Or is the air force holding on to see whether anything does eventuate with the C-17 in time?
So suggest these present day dilemmas could have also been a contributing factor to not progress the "Military Heavy Aircraft" option to replace the 757's at this point in time. As we well know, "timing is everything", right now is not good but that may change in the future, for the better.
The ideal time to acquire a mil-airlifter (such as the C-17 back in the day or A400M etc), would have been as C-130H replacements i.e. like-for-like. If we look at the RAAF as an example, their C-17 acquisition came about (some 20 plus years ago) because they replaced two early model C-130 squadrons - 36 squadron then acquired the C-17, originally 4 then 8 aircraft, and 37 Squadron then acquired the C-130J).
For the RNZAF at the time, the plan was to replace the C-130H with the C-130J but a change of govt (1999) decided to give the C-130H a life extension programme instead and media coverage in the late 2000's suggested that they would then be replaced by the A400M (IIRC in the late 2010's/early 2020's?). Of course the C130LEP ran behind time (covered well here by various posters) meaning replacement was delayed.
The C-17 production line then shut down (resulting in a hurried attempt to acquire the C-17 Whitetails, years earlier than intended, by using a 757 replacement justification instead - which was a round peg/square hole situation).
The A400M turned out more problematic than envisaged (i.e. not fully operational as planned, for various other air forces), so suggest this may have seen the RNZAF turning attention away from the A400M towards to more reliable and interoperable C-17 back in 2014.
As the C-17 is no longer a possibility and there may still be some caution with the A400M, that leaves the C-2, a fantastic aircraft for sure which would look good with a Kiwi roundel on it, but one which no one else outside of Japan operates. This all poses dilemmas!
I would suggest that recent scuttlebutt suggesting that Boeing "might" resume C-17 production would have garnered some interest within Defence. Because not only would that type's interoperability and proven record be attractive, the timeframes to potentially restart production could well have aligned perfectly with a new capital project (aligning with the planned increases to defence funding). But again restarting the C-17 production line appears to be a non-starter and now it is also being suggested that the C-17/C-5 replacement programmes will be pushed out even further well into the future.
So that could leave the A400M, although our closet FVEY partner/operator would be the UK, half way around the world. Or potentially the C-2, with some perceived risk, although with Japan/NZ increasing defence co-operation perhaps Japan would be willing to smooth the certification process? Or is the air force holding on to see whether anything does eventuate with the C-17 in time?
So suggest these present day dilemmas could have also been a contributing factor to not progress the "Military Heavy Aircraft" option to replace the 757's at this point in time. As we well know, "timing is everything", right now is not good but that may change in the future, for the better.
RetirementIsGood
Member
Why not the Embraer C-390 Millennium?
Unlike the C-2, it has significant international sales success, selected by Portugal, Hungary, Netherlands, Austria, Czech Republic, South Korea, Sweden & Uzbekistan as well as Brazil.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
My take, FWIW, is that if NZG had made the determination at the outset that the requirements were for civilian narrow body airliners only, then gov't was already determined to purchase a VIP aircraft and not 'strategic' airlift, despite how it might have been spun and sold.
By requiring any aircraft selected be a narrow body, that automatically eliminated the vast majority of civilian airliner designs, since there are only three different designs (and their derivatives which are functionally VIP/bizjets) consisting of the B737 family, the A320 family, and the former Bombardier C-series now offered as the A220 family.
Neither of the two major western aircraft companies have anything on offer which is a direct descendent or replacement for either the B727 or B757 and I tend to think, given the state of the aviation industry and airlines as a whole, it is unlikely either company would spend the coin to develop one.
If one looks at airliners currently in production, aside from most designs being wide body, all the ones with freight version in production are also wide body whilst the narrow bodies in production are used to move comparatively smaller numbers of people (and only people AFAIK, do not see narrow body freight versions in production). By limiting design criteria to narrow bodies, it pretty much limited aircraft options to those which were really only suitable for VIP transport with some additional passenger lift capability. I also tend to think it ended up that the requirements more or less dictated what was selected, since the two real contenders for in production civilian narrow bodies were either the B737 MAX, or newer A320 designs. Given the problems that people and Boeing had encountered with the MAX, that would really have left only an A320 version remaining.
By requiring any aircraft selected be a narrow body, that automatically eliminated the vast majority of civilian airliner designs, since there are only three different designs (and their derivatives which are functionally VIP/bizjets) consisting of the B737 family, the A320 family, and the former Bombardier C-series now offered as the A220 family.
Neither of the two major western aircraft companies have anything on offer which is a direct descendent or replacement for either the B727 or B757 and I tend to think, given the state of the aviation industry and airlines as a whole, it is unlikely either company would spend the coin to develop one.
If one looks at airliners currently in production, aside from most designs being wide body, all the ones with freight version in production are also wide body whilst the narrow bodies in production are used to move comparatively smaller numbers of people (and only people AFAIK, do not see narrow body freight versions in production). By limiting design criteria to narrow bodies, it pretty much limited aircraft options to those which were really only suitable for VIP transport with some additional passenger lift capability. I also tend to think it ended up that the requirements more or less dictated what was selected, since the two real contenders for in production civilian narrow bodies were either the B737 MAX, or newer A320 designs. Given the problems that people and Boeing had encountered with the MAX, that would really have left only an A320 version remaining.
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Concur, all good points, I think though to be fair I'm not sure anything would necessarily have been pre-determined? If so, more like the narrow body was the de-facto standard to be measured against for the other categories (giving narrow body an advantage being a known quantity). Things like through-life costs for all the category options would then become major factors to take into account (and unfortunately the document release doesn't provide any details for us to gain a better understanding of such costs and thus the decision process), but no doubt larger aircraft cost more to operate and sustain. And by examining these other categories (and how their nations operate them) Defence should be better informed should a future opportunity to acquire another platform eventuate.
The other important consideration as noted in the documents were delivery timeframes. Presumably narrow body airliners are faster to produce and acquire?
Anyway one positive is that new and current aircraft, rather than second-hand or aircraft nearing the end of their production lines are being obtained for a change.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Deliberate or not, conscious or not, if gov't had determined to stick with a narrow body then major decisions had already been made and the majority of transport aircraft production was immediately excluded.
Having done some more digging, it appears that both Boeing and Airbus offer P2F conversions for their narrow body passenger airliner based on versions of either the B737-400, B737-800 or 737-900ER, or in the case of Airbus the A321P2F. P2F conversions are also available from Airbus for the A330-200 & A330-300 wide bodies. Perhaps more significantly, when I look at both Airbus and Boeing's lines the new production freighter versions all seem to be wide body only, using the A330 or A350 for Airbus, or the B767 or the B777.
Now I am not in the air freight or shipping industries, but the fact that the aircraft companies are not building 'new' production freight versions of narrow body airliners, and instead are building new freighters using wide body long-ranged aircraft, then does tend to suggest to me that the industry is moving away from smaller short/medium haul narrow body aircraft for air freight. This would be despite the fact that several air freight companies like DHL, FedEx and UPS continue to use freight versions of the B757 and are among largest fleet operators for these aircraft remaining.
Boiling it all down, it really does look like the programme reqs were drafted to deliver a business jet/VIP aircraft and not strategic airlift. Going with a narrow body when no one appears to be building narrow body freighter or passenger/freight aircraft. Having a passenger seating capacity less than half the 'normal' two cabin capacity and ~40% the 'normal' one cabin seating and with no apparent plans to convert the aircraft to make them more suitable for cargo movement... It does look like NZ has spent some significant coin (NZD$700 mil. in capital acquisition costs for a lease-to-purchase arrangement IIRC) to have the ability to move comparatively smaller numbers of people quickly and comfortably over long distances. Such a capability is really not what comes to my mind when the term 'strategic airlift' is used.
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
My guess is that it comes down to costs eg narrowbody purchase and ongoing sustainment budget = X ; widebody purchase and ongoing sustainment budget = 1.5X (figures made up of course). Everything NZG/Treasury does drills down to cost.
Sure "political interference" appears to be a feature in many nations (I'm thinking Canada: F-35 or not F-35 (something else non-US now), or John F's example of historic Naval helicopter chopping and changes. Or US Airbus v Boeing AAR tanker competitions. Or Australian Pollies chasing ship building projects for their own State interests etc). But IMO in a small country like NZ doesn't tend to have pollies dictating platforms, for a start I doubt they have a clue what the difference is between platform A v platform B - they totally rely on Ministry briefings and usually 99.9% of NZ's defence equipment purchases come from overseas anyway so there are usually little in the way of local lobbying. No doubt someone can provide some examples if I have this wrong. : )
Thanks, appreciate your time and effort researching this. I see Lufthansa have a nice looking A321F Freighter narrow body conversion, specifically for carrying containers. Wonder if any early consideration (for the 757 replacement project) was given to acquiring a third A321, similar to the A321F? I suspect though, if Defence had a choice between an A321F v a mil-airlifter (T tail) then they would take the latter because of its extra versatility to carry outsized loads, plus they would then likely obtain more than one airlifter (v only one A321F + 2x A321XLR). Alternatively add a couple of widebody production freighters later (once the time is ready for a case can be made). That is, cover the basics first with the narrowbody (pollies are happy). I base this on the ill-fated attempt to acquire C-17 back in 2014, without a narrowbody pax solution available. For NZ's small population unable to sustain domestic economic growth on its own, trading with the rest of the world is a must hence the need to move trade delegations around the globe.
Agree, the meaning of "strategic airlift" now, without decent cargo carrying capacity. doesn't quite reflect the terminology well, as a comparison with our allies.
(Suggest transferring the A321XLR's from 40 (Transport) Squadron and giving them to 42 (VIP/Training) Squadron ... that gets around the "strategic airlift" label issue! Hey that means 40 Sqn can advocate for a true "strategic airlifter" to rejoin their fleet! Kind of kidding but there is method in my madness)!
@ RetirementisGood - sorry would have thought someone would have answered! But probably because we now have the C-130J so C-390 wouldn't offer us anything in terms of greater carrying capacity, when there are other options out there (A400M, C2, widebody freighter etc). Plus lack of other close by regional users to plug into support and training (eg Aus and US), well unless we were to increase cooperation with SK, but still unlikely when there are other options that could also be considered to best lift the regenerated Army etc.
Last edited:
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
My impression, being literally and figuratively far removed from anything to do with the selection in NZ, is that a set of criteria was provided which effectively excluded from consideration any aircraft which had capabilities that met the normal definition for strategic lift. Given the supposed Kiwi emphasis on VfM, I find this a rather curious situation.
I have not been able to get an exact breakdown of the A321XLR lease to purchase costs, apart from the total capital costs involved of NZD$700 mil. for the two aircraft, and not including operating costs from what I have been able to tell. Not sure if this capital acquisition cost includes other one-time ancillary costs like new hangars, or improvements to existing facilities, an establishment of parts spares, training, etc. There could be quite a few additional things needed when adding or replacing aircraft which might exceed the flyaway aircraft costs.
Having said all that, we are currently looking at per aircraft pricing that might approach NZSD$350 mil. per aircraft, or ~USD$211 mil. When I looked around, I came across a 2023 purchase by Switzerland for a Bombardier Global 7500 for ~USD$109 mil. which could just about match the number of VIP seats being acquired in the A321XLR and also function as an aeromedical ambulance if needed. When I look at some other large bizjet options like a Gulfstream 650ER which would have comparable seating (19) they seem to go for around USD$80 mil. for new production.
OTOH if the ability to move trade delegates was considered such a priority, then the NZG could potentially have looked to work something out with the national carrier ANZ which I believe NZ is still the majority shareholder. NZG might have been able to lease an ANZ aircraft specifically to move gov't reps around for overseas talks, or perhaps chartered flights as needed. I do recall that some years ago (ahead of the B727 purchase perhaps?) it was determined by gov't that the amount NZG was paying commercial airline entities to move NZDF personnel around to different locations was excessive and it would be less expensive to buy airliners for the RNZAF to move the troops. Right now I would be very interested to see how current and projected NZDF personnel and cargo moves would cost.