Some History

Back in 1987 when Fiji had its first military coup the then government wanted to deploy troops to Fiji, however as it panned out, the need was not needed anymore. However it was advised that New Zealand could not deploy and self-sustain the deployment, we could deploy the NZSAS and secure what region however we had no backup for the troops on the ground and could not deploy our main force and keep the supply routes to them open.

The Royal New Zealand Navy did not have anything that we could use to deploy a small task force. The Royal New New Zealand Air Force could not effectively do this alone and would have struggled with keeping the C-130's in the air and at the time of need the Air Force only had one C-130 flying, the other four were in maintenance one in a schedule deep maintenance and the others in minor maintenance waiting on parts and the like. The Andovers simply didn't have the range.

This failure leads to trials and errors of the NZG and the MoD to come up with ways to, self deploy a small task force and maintain this deployment. That lead to the disaster of HMNZS Charles Upham debacle which in turn has lead to the “Project Protector” and HMNZS Canterbury who has had a rough start but is starting to show her worth, whilst I believe we now need a to get a proper LPD/LHD. This will be explained why later.

READ MORE

• Royal New Zealand Air Force considers C-17
• Options for the NZDF and RNZN 2nd enhanced Sealift vessel
• Why do I think the Endurance 170 LHD is a good choice for the RNZN.

So with HMNZS Canterbury we now have a limited strategic sea lift and Canterbury can take any of the equipment our armed forces operate and any of the new equipment planned as well as future, but she is limited.

While Canterbury can deploy by sea that is slow. This has it advantages for some things but not for a rapid response force or humanitarian aid and disaster relief. That is where airlift is required and I mean strategic airlift. To project and deploy any equipment the NZDF owns and operates anywhere in the world without the help of our allies.

Over the last 30 years, the NZDF overall has had its ups and downs from low morale and bad NZG/MoD decisions and the cruncher of major cutbacks. Equipment is getting old and unreliable. We are getting less and less and smaller and smaller for a defence force. From 4 frigates to 2, Losing our combat wing, to not replacing the Tactical airlift of the time, too bad choices and money-driven decisions. But on the positive side, some great new kit for the NZDF in general.

The RNZAF got the NH-90 medium utility helicopter and A109 light utility helicopter. The P3's were upgraded to P-3K2, and the C-130's got a life extension, The acquisition of 2 modified B757.

The Army replaced the old M113 with the NZLAV, they also have the LOV's and the new MHOV Trucks including REBS and the javelin missile. The H&K 40mm Grenade Machine Gun plus some new individual weapon. The MoD is also looking at replacing the ageing Steyr Rifle.

The RNZN eventually got Project Protector, the ANZAC frigates are being upgraded with new sensors and Sea Ceptor, and they bought the failed Australian Sea Sprites and AGM-119 Penguin Missile. This is the first time that the RNZN has had dedicated Anti Ship Missile. Even though they are only fired from the Sea Sprite. It is a great leap forward.

Boeing C-17

There are Pros and Cons to acquiring The Boeing C-17. But before we go into this let's look at why the government is even considering these aircraft. The Royal New Zealand Air Force has over the years had its ups and downs from losing the A4's Combat Wing to fully getting replacements for the old Sioux helicopter and the UH-1 Iroquois with the A-109 and the NH-90. The P3's got upgraded, and the acquisition of 2 B757's that were upgraded with cargo doors and new power plants etc. To losing the Andover's to struggling with deploying the NZA.

The C-130's have finally had yet another life extension-making some of the oldest operational C-130's in the world... to take through to around 2020-25... and by then they will sixty years old yes 60. So I mean come on, they need replacing this is not acceptable. Let the old girls go for Pete's sake.

The NZG and Mod did not properly replace the “Hawker Siddeley HS 780 Andovers” which were light tactical airlift and were at the time perfect for this. For tactical airlift around New Zealand, however, their short-range meant that was their main role. But the Royal New Zealand Air Force operated ten aircraft from 1976, acquired from the RAF while still relatively new. These aircraft saw service with UN missions to Somalia and on the Iran-Iraq border, and in disaster-relief work in the Pacific. The Andovers were retired from service in 1998. The main difficulty with their service in New Zealand was their limited range – 1,000 nautical miles (1,900 km) of the Pacific Ocean separate New Zealand from its nearest neighbours. New Zealand's Andovers were purchased to replace the Bristol Freighter which had an even shorter range.

Adding to this as our equipment has changed and has been upgraded, even the C-130's can not carry all of our own equipment. The Army has a mobile hospital that can not be deployed because we have nothing that can carry it. This hospital would be perfect for humanitarian aid if it could be deployed.

The NZLAV III's can not fit in any of the models of the C-130's (including the J's and J-30) unless it is fully stripped and the then it would struggle to get to Aussie due to the weight and range. This is not acceptable and then the LAV's need to come off its transport and be able to instantly be used in the field as called on, not wait to re-assemble them.

The NH-90 can not be deployed by air unless it tries to self deploy which is risky operation in the south pacific for a helo and has not been proven it can be successfully done, at present they are only deployed by HMNZS Canterbury. These aircraft would be great in humanitarian aid and disaster relief.

Now I hear many saying we don't deploy our LAV's or NH-90's etc... not true in 2008-09 5 LAV's were sent to assist our troops in Afghanistan, and whether right or wrong, we are now sending troops to Iraq and there could be the possibility for the need of the LAV. At present we have to rely on our allies to deploy these and return them or use commercial means which is even more expensive than doing it on our own. Again not acceptable, we need to be able to self deploy.

If there is another disaster in the pacific it would great if we can deploy the NH-90 to assist in the relief efforts and at present, they would have to wait on Canterbury or try the risky self-deploy tactic which has not been proven yet. It is risky for a helo to travel the vast distance across the open ocean weather patterns can change on a dime and unlike an aircraft, they can not fly above the storm. Recently with cyclone "Pam" 3 or 4 flight loads of C-130 from the RNZAF could have been done in one flight. and we could have deployed the NH-90 or hospital.

The USAF uses the C-17 to fly to the antarctic, it gives them more loiter time than the C-130 to decide to land on the ice or return to the mainland... (if running low on fuel) as experienced recent times landing on fumes is fun.

Finally having strategic airlift means we can fully help our allies if needed, it means if for whatever reason our ANZAC brothers across the ditch the Aussies need help we can, we would be able to carry what they can, it also means rapid deployment to Aussie with fire fighting equipment and trucks to help in their bush fires they have, or if the the needed extra help in defending Australia as part of our defence plan.

The C-17 can carry 4 time a load of a Hercules, twice as fast and twice as far... and for disaster aid in the pacific speed and lift capability is needed... we could deploy the NH-90 as well as aid to a disaster-stricken area in a couple of flights... at present we would have to wait for HMNZS Canterbury to come home, load up, and re-sail... could take a week... and in "disaster aid" speed is everything... Ah Christchurch.

To those that say we haven't deployed our assets before, well, we have never had the capability to deploy them by air before. New Zealand no longer has no strategic airlift capability only a limited tactical airlift.

There have been times Bougainvillea, East Timor, Afghanistan, and now Iraq... where we needed strategic airlift. No, we bludged off our allies. Well no more... the comments from the politicians that we can just use the clubs gear. No, No, No...

Now I am not saying the C-17 is the only aircraft there is, the Airbus A-400m, which is cheaper off the shelf, and to run, however it is an unproven aircraft, it is stilling ironing out all the bugs and there will be unknown costs due to that. It is not operational or been cleared operational in any air force yet... bugs... they are just starting deliveries to the various countries that built it It also has limitations as well and we will explore those below.

Our current C-130 fleet is coming up to 50 years old they need replacing. They are some of the oldest flying C-130 Hercules in operation. What does it tell you when other countries that fly the C-17 are ordering more, it tells you the benefit of having that capability out ways the cost.

There is what is known as a "thin air fund" basically its a fund for “crap wish we had the money to buy that because it is a deal and we really need it type of fund.” Not many people realise this.

Airbus - A-400m

The A-400m is an interesting design however there are a few things we need to work through. The A-400 is still in the early years and has never truly been tested by the riggers of full military operations.

The range of the A-400 whilst greater than the C-130 is not as great as the C-17, it is also again faster than the C-130 but a lot slower than the C-17. And finally the payload is not as good as the C-17 but yes better than the C-130, and this is the big one for me to push for the C-17 as our strategic air lifter and later when we replace the C-130s fully, the A400 will be more a mature aircraft and been tested.

Scott Base is located on Ross Island in the Ross Sea region of Antarctica. Ross Island is 3932 km from Christchurch New Zealand the range of the A-400m is 3,298 km. The range of the C-130 is 3,800km but with the upgrades, the RNZAF C-130s have extra tanks and range to approx 4100km, depending on cargo etc.

The New Zealand Defence Force is now (rightly or wrongly) more operationally active in the world, I stress New Zealand no longer has any strategic airlift since we replaced the M113, and the UH-1 the C-130 Hercules can now only give us tactical airlift and we need to be self-sufficient and be able self deploy any of our equipment and anywhere and at present we can not do this by air. The C-17 would give this ability. It is ready now off the shelf and not under development.

My recommendation is a total of 6 or 7 airframes, 3 C-17's for full strategic and limited tactical lift and 3 or 4 A-400m's for full tactical and limited strategic lift.

Apparently, A400M partner nations were not pleased with what Airbus is doing to resolve outstanding issues. Maybe with Boeing's C-17 production end, Airbus doesn't feel the heat as much. I am sure NZ is weighing this event in their decision process on new transport.

• Airbus Risks A400M Penalty Claims By Partner Nations
• C-130H vs C-130J-30
• Reaching for the sky – Super Hercules delivery in 2024
• Five new Super Hercules to join Air Force fleet

This goes back to my bugs and not truly tested New Zealand can not afford to go down this path till this aircraft is in full service

The difference

What is the difference between strategic and tactical airlift? There are a variety of factors to take into consideration. These include the size of payload compared to available equipment that needs to be airlifted, the range the aircraft can fly with this full payload, the landing and take-off distance required, paved or just an unprepared airstrip.

To have any form of strategic airlift you must be able to carry or effectively self deploy your own armed forces and equipment. In our case deploying the NH-90 or LAV for example to Iraq. Strategic aircraft don't necessarily have to be able to land on short runways or un-prepared runways etc.

When we had the M113, and the Scorpion light weight tanks the UH-1 they could fit into the C130 and be deployed.. giving strategic lift, but since they have been replaced with the LAV, NH-90 this effectively removed our strategic airlift capability. Adding to this we can not deploy the mobile hospital and would struggle with some of the newer heavy truck replacements.

Tactical airlift on the other has usually designed around internal flights of the given theatre whether deployed or internal flights of the home region. For our case, this would include the wider pacific region. The aircraft doesn't have to be able to take every single piece of military equipment the army has but be able to handle a decent chunk of it. They are usually smaller and can land and take off from shorter runways, have the ability to be an agile aircraft.

There is a fine line because it depends what equipment that you have to carry, and where is it going, is it going to be shot at, is it required to land on and take off from a very short runway.

• C-17 - A strategic airlift aircraft that has limited tactical use built by Boeing. This is an off the shelf aircraft that would fully meet our strategic requirements for the foreseeable future.
• A-400m – Limited strategic and full tactical airlift aircraft built by Airbus. This aircraft is still being developed and has had problems from the get-go. However once matured it would meet our tactical requirements and help with limited strategic flights.

NH-90 Cyclon Pam

Why didn't the NH-90 be deployed for cyclon Pam on bard HMNZS Canterbury?

The main reason I hear (from my sources) is that the RNZAF NH-90's are not fully in service as of yet, which means they are not 100% operational... they have a Crawl, Walk, Run policy which means they have not been fully cleared to fly other than in New Zealand, have not been fully cleared for deployment, and or operate off HMNZS Canterbury. This is the joys of having an untested aircraft. Do we want that with the A-400m if we get them too soon?

So the media BS about the corrosion and such is whilst is partly true it is utter BS that that is the main reason and concern.

Royal New Zealand Air Force

New Zealand Army

Royal New Zealand Navy

Index