NZDF General discussion thread

[recce.k1]

Reasons to acquire further C-130J-30's off the LM production line (hypothetically speaking i.e. should NZG require additional a/c) are solid eg new air-frames, compatible fit-outs, ease of support integration etc. It would be the lowest risk option and give us at least 30 years of use.

Looking at the time-frames though, NZG ordered C-130J-30's aircraft in June 2020 and delivery is scheduled from December 2024 to May 2025, which is 4.5-5 years.

So if hypothetically speaking were the NZG to order additional C-130-J-30's from LM (let's say in mid-late 2022, which might be too early/optimistic for such a decision) then could we expect deliveries from late 2026-mid 2027? Or later than that if the NZG dithers?

If so would that time-frame be suitable for the situation we face? (Eg whatever happens "post-Ukraine" and whatever happens "post-Putin" doesn't change the fact that Russia is an authoritarian state and will continue to be so (and possibly one that is bitter and re-builds à la Germany pre-WW2). Closer to home we are having to contend with an outwardly expanding CCP, which will continue to make inroads into our realm).

So do we need to acquire additional C-130J-30's, if so what for? The "what for" would be to be able to sustain operations and provide for concurrent operations.

Currently to sustain operations two of our current five Hercs must be available for taskings. For concurrent operations sometimes (but not always) a third C-130 may be available. These C-130 (low) numbers put taskings (and govt outputs) at risk. These numbers are inadequate, particularly as the Army is expanding (over time). Then if new enhanced capabilities are sought in the years ahead (lets say mobile anti-shipping or anti-aircraft systems as an example) then they also need to be moved by air (further tieing up our C-130 resources).

Granted, the five new C-130J-30's will not require major servicing whilst the aircraft are young and availability rates should be higher (but even so, five aircraft is still pushing airlift support to the max. And thank goodness the previous DefMin didn't sign off on four C130J-30's as that figure was being bandied around in the media at the time).

RNZAF will also have a capability gap as its first C-130H(NZ) is expected to be retired in early 2023 (although the first C-130J-30 is expected Dec 2024, "Full Operational Release is scheduled for December 2025")!

But let's look at the RAF situation, from 2023 up to fourteen C-130J-30's will become available. They are among the earliest C-130J's produced (so around 20 years old) and were used extensively in the Middle-East throughout the 2000's and into the 2010's.

However they are available "now" (well, 2023), what if the NZG acquired some of them, with a view to using them for short term use (eg 5-10 years, with no further expensive life-extension refurbishments planned?). And perhaps as an interim buy to allow for a second tranche of new/interoperable C130J-30's to be acquired from LM for the late 2020's or perhaps early 2030's)?

The RAF had planned to retire them with an out-of-service date (OSD) of 2035. They have all had a "centre-wing box replacement". They also have an in-flight re-fueling probe (which this article mentions the "maximum unrefuelled ferry range is 3500 NM, which can be extended to over 4000NM by air-to-air refuelling", which could be handy for us with our "tyranny of distance" issues? (If so all we need is for the B757 replacements to be something like the A330-MRTT, or perhaps the next hypothetical tranch of C-130J-30's could include a couple of KC-130J variants etc)?

This article gives the airframe hours accrued for the RAF C-130J's (the range is from 9,000-14,000 hours).

Finally this idea may be a moot point, as one would hope the UK Govt comes to its senses (with the war in Ukraine) and reverses its decision to axe the RAF C-130 fleet. For a start the RAF will lose 23% of its fixed-wing airlift fleet, there are other articles suggesting the C-130J is preferred by UK Special Forces due to its smaller size (compared to the A-400M which is higher and has a higher radar cross section etc) and the fact that it works so why fix something that isn't broke (and with an alternative option the A-400M that hasn't been proven in that role)? Something else I didn't realise until I started reading up on this is that Marshall Aerospace will lose thousands of employees and its vast experience and institutional knowledge when the RAF's C-130's are retired (Marshall Aerospace has contributed to much of NZ's C-130 upgrades over the years).

 

[Rob c]

However they are available "now" (well, 2023), what if the NZG acquired some of them, with a view to using them for short term use (eg 5-10 years, with no further expensive life-extension refurbishments planned?). And perhaps as an interim buy to allow for a second tranche of new/interoperable C130J-30's to be acquired from LM for the late 2020's or perhaps early 2030's)?

Good thinking, the NZDF has a lot of catching up to do in many areas that if we get the pollies to agree to start, this will require a lot of compromises like this to achieve a result. Going for perfection as we try to upgrade or re-establish capabilities will inevitably mean that we will not achieve all we that we need and some capabilities that are needed to defend NZ don't happen.
The point you made that the RAF Hercules have had the wing box(centre section) changed and have between 9000 to 14000 hours would mean they have a lot of life left.

 

[Wombat000]

I apologise in advance, I’ve just got home from work and so I’m skimming prev comments.
Facility may actually exist for extra airframes, hulls, vehicles or systems?

But the key question is ‘WHY’?

I’m thinking I’m preaching to the converted here, but for the GOTD and populous as a movement, “WHY”?

Fantasy fleets aside, nothing will happen until a broader intrinsic rationale is embraced.

Current fleets can move it’s capacity around, ‘police‘ approaches. So why change?
Australia and the US are seemingly oblivious, so is it a wonder the the NZG and attitudes are as well?

 

[Todjaeger]

I apologise in advance, I’ve just got home from work and so I’m skimming prev comments.
Facility may actually exist for extra airframes, hulls, vehicles or systems?

But the key question is ‘WHY’?

I’m thinking I’m preaching to the converted here, but for the GOTD and populous as a movement, “WHY”?

Fantasy fleets aside, nothing will happen until a broader intrinsic rationale is embraced.

Current fleets can move it’s capacity around, ‘police‘ approaches. So why change?
Australia and the US are seemingly oblivious, so is it a wonder the the NZG and attitudes are as well?

I am honestly not sure I understand what the question of "why?" is supposed to be asking.

The current fleets can, more or less, meet current demands. Providing nothing goes wrong and there are no unplanned or unexpected demands. Which is sort of the point behind the ideas that a number of posters have had about expanding and modernizing various elements. Due to the age of various pieces of kit, their accumulated service lives, and limited numbers in service (which can tend to accelerate usage and reduce effective service life) NZ gov'ts have at times found themselves, in peace time, unable to tap on Defence for a response to gov't policy. An example of this which I have used in the past stems from one of the periods of unrest in Thailand, which would have either been the 2006 or 2014 coup, was when the only available governmental airlift to evac Kiwis from Thailand was a single C-130H Hercules. This became even more of a problem IIRC because the C-130H had to abort and return to base shortly after takeoff due to some sort of failure or onboard warning.

It would also be worth noting that in a number of instances, it does seem that the NZDF of today is unable to carry out the same sorts of missions, especially concurrently, that the NZDF had been able to conduct in the past.

Not sure what the reference to Australia and US being seemingly oblivious is about, or what they are oblivious to.

 

[Wombat000]

Is there actually a motivator to NZG to enhance the NZDF?
Im unsure there is?

it’s currently capable to doing the tasks asked of it, generally.
yeah, extra would be good but it’s ok for what’s expected of it.

there is a domestic capability, certainly, and there can be fielded a NZ presence in the strategic space if required.
The RNZDF/navy can respond to an incident in NZ waters, and I’m sure Australia can assist with a niche attachment as required.

This is the prevailing attitude of the NZG, & perceptibly the wider electorate, correct?

Certainly Australia makes no specific demands or implications.
The US walked away when the nuclear embargo was enacted and, I’m pretty sure haven’t since confirmed the NZG mailing address since.

So what is the motivator for the NZG to enhance NZDF capability, whether its debatably practically available or not?

Isnt postulating enhancements before determining requirement/desire, putting cart before horse?

 

[OldTex]

there is a domestic capability, certainly, and there can be fielded a NZ presence in the strategic space if required.
The RNZDF/navy can respond to an incident in NZ waters, and I’m sure Australia can assist with a niche attachment as required.

This is the prevailing attitude of the NZG, & perceptibly the wider electorate, correct?

But would the "NZ presence in the strategic space" be a needed, even niche, capability or would it be just a token presence intended more domestic consumption?
Your presumption that Australia will provide niche attachments for NZ maritime incidents as required ignores the fact that any Australian contribution for a NZ domestic situation would still require a Government-to-Government request.
From my perspective, the prevailing attitude of the NZ government and the wider NZ electorate does appear to be that 'someone else will provide the capability". I would not like to stake my life on that presumption.

 

[Redlands18]

Is there actually a motivator to NZG to enhance the NZDF?
Im unsure there is?

there is a domestic capability, certainly, and there can be fielded a NZ presence in the strategic space if required.
The RNZDF/navy can respond to an incident in NZ waters, and I’m sure Australia can assist with a niche attachment as required.

Should NZ be be reliant on Australia assisting with a niche attachment as required? While Australia has a quite wide variety of different military systems now and planning to add more in coming years, none of it will be in any great numbers, probably close to bare minimum for Australia's own needs for the most part. If the NZDF is seeing incidents in its own waters then there is a distinct probability so is Australia. Also don't forget that the NZG has already stated that RAN SSNs will not be allowed in NZ waters, so that cuts out our most powerful planned weapon system.

 

[Todjaeger]

Is there actually a motivator to NZG to enhance the NZDF?
Im unsure there is?

it’s currently capable to doing the tasks asked of it, generally.
yeah, extra would be good but it’s ok for what’s expected of it.

there is a domestic capability, certainly, and there can be fielded a NZ presence in the strategic space if required.
The RNZDF/navy can respond to an incident in NZ waters, and I’m sure Australia can assist with a niche attachment as required.

This is the prevailing attitude of the NZG, & perceptibly the wider electorate, correct?

Certainly Australia makes no specific demands or implications.
The US walked away when the nuclear embargo was enacted and, I’m pretty sure haven’t since confirmed the NZG mailing address since.

So what is the motivator for the NZG to enhance NZDF capability, whether its debatably practically available or not?

Isnt postulating enhancements before determining requirement/desire, putting cart before horse?

I would consider it rather questionable or perhaps arguable that the NZDF is really capable of doing the tasks ask of it, since we have seen where, in peace time, the NZDF just cannot carry out a task from gov't.

We have also seen the NZDF disband capabilities and/or retire kit without replacement, resulting in capabilities being given up. In effect, the current NZDF has been getting reconfigured for peacetime and/or some HADR ops in a "benign" strategic environment. One of the major issues with this is that a defence force is likely to be tasked with responding to abnormal or otherwise out of the ordinary circumstances. Such situations can result in injuries, death, or damages if things do not go smoothly. Forcing the NZDF to be reliant on too few numbers of kit, much of which is either coming up for replacement or should have been replaced a decade or more ago, is more likely to cause what is in service to suffer failures, as well as magnify the negative impacts.

As I see it, successive NZ GotD's have managed to ignore requirements that Defence put out based upon service outputs gov't states are requirements, in order to match gov't desire for kit/capabilities and not what is actually needed.

In many respects, it might also be better to try and drive home to all Kiwis how and why this attitude which has forced the NZDF to just 'make due' can lead to spectacular failure, particularly given the changing world security environment.

 

[Gracie1234]

Another aspect to this is the NZDF has been proposing options for the govt to endorse and then fund. The govt due to its understanding of the strategic environment has consistently chosen the minimal capability option. For example, the NH90 helicopters had options of 8, 10 or 12 airframes. The option of 8 was chosen, hence we now have this number of airframes. This is also how we ended up with 2 frigates instead of 4.
To be honest i do not see this govt doing anything for these reasons in the short term:
- They are providing funding to Ukraine, this demonstrates their commitment.
- Nato has agreed to support the Asian partners in respect to China, our support structure has now been reinforced
- The strategic environment paper that was recently released requires significant analysis i.e. the question of what it means, how should we respond and what capabilities are needed to deliver this response has not been worked out. This will take years!!! A strategic plan will be needed and then a capability plan.
- COVID has left the NZDF underresourced so there is no one left to do anything anyway.

But on the plus side:
- There is an increasing realisation that we are no longer in a benign strategic environment by the govt
- There is a realisation that large countries will do what they want, the UN is powerless
- There is a realisation that if you are not part of an alliance structure then no one will come and save you
- To be part of an alliance structure will require commitments from this govt to support it with actual capabilities, you can not freeload. We can not plead poverty when our GDP per capita is close to our partners and our external debt as a % of GDP is lower
- The public are starting to see and understand all of the above, the media are at least starting to engage on the topic as well. Following the comments section shows very few people are against increasing our defence capability. There were no protests against the P8, not cheap
- The strategic environment paper can not be ignored as it is starting to come true, Solomon's Island military base will be a reality.
- It will not be acceptable to NZ to lose it's influence in the Pacific that is our buffer zone
- After the Pacific, Antarctica will be next. That is far too much to lose!

 

[kiwi in exile]

Is there actually a motivator to NZG to enhance the NZDF?
Im unsure there is?

Readers here see there is.
Domestically politically no. There are no votes to be gained in defence spending.
Yet they will make plenty of milage out of Anzac day which to me seems hypocritical.

Not sure how much pressure aust/us put on nzg re defence spending and commitments. I'm sure nzg would just respond with "independent foreign policy"

I agree that we are at risk of failing to deliver in term of national/pacific hadr and airlift of citizens etc due to old equipment and low numbers.

There needs to be a defence strategy plan to follow on from the threat assessment. Without doing this there is no roadmap to redesigning and rebuilding the nzdf and it's capabilities. For the govt if there is no strategic plan there is no need to do more. Vintage herc flyover on Anzac day and everyone's happy.

 

[recce.k1]

Good thinking, the NZDF has a lot of catching up to do in many areas that if we get the pollies to agree to start, this will require a lot of compromises like this to achieve a result. Going for perfection as we try to upgrade or re-establish capabilities will inevitably mean that we will not achieve all we that we need and some capabilities that are needed to defend NZ don't happen.
The point you made that the RAF Hercules have had the wing box(centre section) changed and have between 9000 to 14000 hours would mean they have a lot of life left.

Just catching up on all this. You've hit the nail on the head, there is much catching up to be done, which will require a lot of compromises (I read that as meaning each service will have many priorities, but like our "fantasy fleets", only some or few may be funded in the end and with the important emphasis on jointness, it could be that some "niche" capabilities critical for individual services may not be high up on any final overall priority lists. But anyway I'm sure Defence planners and the hierarchy have many plans and ideas and have been thinking these things through).

I'm not necessarily advocating for ex-RAF C-130J's (just pointing out they will be available sooner than we can acquire new ones from the assembly line, to plug any gaps as operations increase as the world situation changes, resulting in greater NZG/NZDF involvement).

I also share NM's concerns that any ex-RAF C-130J's could be seen as the "only" solution (by NZG), with money spent on endless upgrade programs (and resulting unavailability periods). So any ex-RAF C-130J's would then have to be an "interim" solution (with additional new C-130J's or A-400M's or C-2s etc in the pipeline). I think it's fair to say we learnt the lessons of the C-130H LEP (life extension programme), which to be fair was a success, but it only delayed the inevitable of requiring new aircraft with modern systems (eg more efficient engines and maintenance regimes, easy access to spare parts etc).

(And again one can hope the UK Govt sees sense and reverses this idea to sell off 23% of their airlift fleet! Ironically at a time when they may be required for discrete UK SAS/SBS operations in Europe (and afar), and when also the UK Govt is wanting to step-up their Indo-Pacific presence, well surely that will require more emphasis on airlift, and although C-17/A-400M can provide important strategic airlift, surely the C-130J's will be useful for tactical and intra-theatre operations)?

But back to the catching up and compromises issues. Even for "pacifist" governments one would think that greater airlift capacity would be an easier sell? And a critical one too to deploy NZ force elements or later peacekeeping and aid efforts. So airlift (and helicopter lift) could be an easy starter. But this will impact on budgets eg additional personnel will be required and therefore increased operational budgets. If new funding can't be provided and the services are expected to cut costs (to make up) then the concern becomes the NZDF will be compromised in other areas (just like the UK situation). No easy answers!

 

[kiwipatriot69]

Airlines across the world grounded thousands of modern civilian passenger jets over the last two years,thanks to covid..

I wonder if there are opportunities there to pick up a couple of them on the cheap to either add to or replace our 757?

 

[ASSAIL]

Current fleets can move it’s capacity around, ‘police‘ approaches. So why change?
Australia and the US are seemingly oblivious, so is it a wonder the the NZG and attitudes are as well?

I can’t speak for the US but only from my australian perspective.
The NZDF, and all previous govts that defunded them have simply caused disappointment to some people across the “ditch”, those of us who care about regional security in a changing strategic reality. You are not “oblivious”.
In previous decades during the height of SE Asian post colonial development and the perceived communist threat to the region and from 1967, the Five Power Defence Arrangements (FPDA), the NZDF provided a much visible, credible and continuous contribution to regional defence and security.
We simply ask, where has that gone, why?

 

[Redlands18]

Airlines across the world grounded thousands of modern civilian passenger jets over the last two years,thanks to covid..

I wonder if there are opportunities there to pick up a couple of them on the cheap to either add to or replace our 757?

Would probably been an excellent time to pick up some relatively low Mileage Airliners reasonably cheap but the NZG seems to be stuck on the set Timeline for the 757 replacement and showing a lack of flexibility.

 

[Stuart M]

Snip

So what is the motivator for the NZG to enhance NZDF capability, whether its debatably practically available or not?

Snip

The possibility/probability of Chinese/CCP fishing fleets base out of the Solomon Islands, backed by their navy/coast guard and land based bombers, plundering the South Pacific for commercial and political purposes.
Above armed forces being used in a broader capacity as leverage to intimidate or otherwise compel a desired policy response from NZGov.

For reference see the 14 demands made of Australia by China, and CCP attepted use of economic coersion to compel a desired policy responce. The last two items being of particular note, as caving on those would require politicians to self censor and not challenge CCP behaviour or take action against CCP activities in Australia, but also take active measures to suppress media commentary on China that is not favourable to the CCP.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1328986579629613057

Now imagine these demands being made of NZ, backed, not just by real or imagined economic coercion, but by land based bombers and the PLAN based out of the Solomons, the possibility of which now exists.

 

[recce.k1]

Airlines across the world grounded thousands of modern civilian passenger jets over the last two years,thanks to covid..

I wonder if there are opportunities there to pick up a couple of them on the cheap to either add to or replace our 757?

I'm wondering whether the NZDF should avoid civilian passenger jets in the future because they don't have the countermeasures fitted (as standard) to fly into areas where there is an element of danger (eg SAM threats)? IIRC the 757's didn't or didn't always fly into the likes of Afghanistan (instead operated out of friendly countries nearby with the C-130's then taking over to fly into theater).

However civilian passenger jets for VIP and State visit type duties could be logical (and that way the 757 replacement could be milspec).

 

[Redlands18]

I'm wondering whether the NZDF should avoid civilian passenger jets in the future because they don't have the countermeasures fitted (as standard) to fly into areas where there is an element of danger (eg SAM threats)? IIRC the 757's didn't or didn't always fly into the likes of Afghanistan (instead operated out of friendly countries nearby with the C-130's then taking over to fly into theater).

However civilian passenger jets for VIP and State visit type duties could be logical (and that way the 757 replacement could be milspec).

A couple of A330 MRTT could be the way to go, used by close Allies, based on a very common Aircraft, all the extra MILSPEC gear is already integrated if req. Could be fitted with a Cargo Door if req, plenty of A330s available 2nd hand in good nick and can be converted easily. Also provides a refuelling capability for the P-8s

 

[RubiconNZ]

A couple of A330 MRTT could be the way to go, used by close Allies, based on a very common Aircraft, all the extra MILSPEC gear is already integrated if req. Could be fitted with a Cargo Door if req, plenty of A330s available 2nd hand in good nick and can be converted easily. Also provides a refuelling capability for the P-8s

I’m banging a drum here I know but..

Absolutely. The RAAF has done it, as long as we don’t try to put our own touches on it to much it should be an extremely straightforward process. If the capacity exists tarining could get started very quickly through the RAAF also. If the political will was to appear I also believe a similar MRTT pool for the Australia and NZ. (IIRC there was a desire for 2 additional KC30s for Australia suspended for reprioritisation)

Due to the current security environment I do not see a single situation where a RAAF/RNZAF Tanker deployment would be opposed by NZ’s major political parties.

This IMO should be the second greatest priority for the RNZAF (Hercules and Orion replacement excluded) the only greater should be the acquisition of appropriate armaments for the P8’s Torpedo and ASM’s.

 

[ngatimozart]

I'm wondering whether the NZDF should avoid civilian passenger jets in the future because they don't have the countermeasures fitted (as standard) to fly into areas where there is an element of danger (eg SAM threats)? IIRC the 757's didn't or didn't always fly into the likes of Afghanistan (instead operated out of friendly countries nearby with the C-130's then taking over to fly into theater).

However civilian passenger jets for VIP and State visit type duties could be logical (and that way the 757 replacement could be milspec).

A couple of A330 MRTT could be the way to go, used by close Allies, based on a very common Aircraft, all the extra MILSPEC gear is already integrated if req. Could be fitted with a Cargo Door if req, plenty of A330s available 2nd hand in good nick and can be converted easily. Also provides a refuelling capability for the P-8s

I believe that there is merit in both suggestions. What I think would be an option is the acquisition of four Airbus A400M or KHI C-2 for the strategic airlift capability and three A330 MRTT for the strategic PAX / MEDEVAC / VIP and AAR capability. I would go with new builds rather than used ones because we will use them for a long time and the price point difference is that great at the moment if you look at the WOLC. The other point is that a Airbus A400M or KHI C-2 acquisition would negate an extra C-130J-30 acquisition because both are capable of rough field operations.

I am steering away from two A330MRTT or any other capability because we have seen the problems that two B757, two frigates, two OPV, inadequate numbers of SH-2G(NZ) Seasprite helicopters have caused in the last 15 years. So it has to be a minimum of three A33MRTT and anything else because of the rule of threes.

I’m banging a drum here I know but..

Absolutely. The RAAF has done it, as long as we don’t try to put our own touches on it to much it should be an extremely straightforward process. If the capacity exists tarining could get started very quickly through the RAAF also. If the political will was to appear I also believe a similar MRTT pool for the Australia and NZ. (IIRC there was a desire for 2 additional KC30s for Australia suspended for reprioritisation)

Due to the current security environment I do not see a single situation where a RAAF/RNZAF Tanker deployment would be opposed by NZ’s major political parties.

This IMO should be the second greatest priority for the RNZAF (Hercules and Orion replacement excluded) the only greater should be the acquisition of appropriate armaments for the P8’s Torpedo and ASM’s.

IF NZ acquired a MRTT capability it would be for NZ requirements first and then be as a force multiplier for allied and coalition operations when required. I don't see any political will from either major party to acquire such an asset because of the cost. The sticker price alone causes major conniptions within the party hierarchy and there would be very strong resistance from Treasury.

Don't presume that the current geostrategic and geopolitical situation will miraculously change the inherent NZ pollies aversion to defence spending. Vladimir & Jinping would have to be marching up Courtney Place with the AKs swinging from both arms, ahead of armoured columns, before the Kiwi pollies would consider a sudden large increase in defence spending to meet the perceived threat.

 

[RubiconNZ]

That’s the rub, I suppose I see a pool of aircraft as offset to maintenance downtime, however for this to be worthwhile for Australia we would need to purchase three. Which would really negate the need for a pool.

I’m certainly not holding my breathe defence speneing wise, we dertainyly haven’t had our come to Jesus moment yet in NZ as Australia did with Timor+, but I’ll remain hopeful I suppose. Meanwhile the Greens are the only with a stated defence policy.

For those following along at home despite a promising MOD assessment, the governments response was essentially to focus on buildings and a defence policy that is treaty focused (what ever that means)

I’ve queried ACT and National, Chris Penk (Ex- Navy) promised some sort of position paper only for him to be moved out of Defence, Tim Van De Molen (Ex Army) got the gig in which he promptly broke his back. We’ve come full circle and it’s back to Big Gerry. In other words focused oppositional pressure seems to be a long way off.

Incidentally can anyone speak to the status of the Mistrals SAM’s NZ has (had) in service. Could they be given to Ukraine if we still have them…