Big Decisions

“A Future Air Mobility project is commencing this year. This will quantify the size of the NZDF’s airlift requirements as a first step towards providing options for the replacement of the ageing C-130 Hercules and B757 fleets. This replacement is intended to occur between 2018 and 2025,” the 2014 Defence Capability Plan reads.

“The project will consider all options to maintain the current range of capabilities including strategic and tactical transport of people and cargo, airdrop, lowlevel and high-level missions, aeromedical evacuation, and backup search and rescue capabilities. It will plan for the overall capability to be maintained through the transition from old aircraft to new, and ensure that the future capability can be operated within the resources available. ” But in plain language, just what are the RNZAF’s air transport capability requirements in the next decade? For a start, what kind of strategic airlift capability does New Zealand need? The country’s requirement to deploy and supply personnel beyond the South Pacific is only ever likely to involve supporting multi-national initiatives that also involve its closest ally, Australia.

With Australia also acknowledged as NZ’s most important security partner in assisting Pacific Islandstates, should any major “strategic” airlift be required in the region, it is highly likely Australia’s C-17s (a fleet which wil soon number eight aircraft) would be best placed to transport truly “strategic” loads to major centres.

Currently, the RNZAF operates the two modified 757- 200s for a variety of functions including strategic airlift, as well as aeromedical evacuation, humanitarian rapid-response and VIP transport. Although the two 757s have provided good service, they are far from being ideal military airlifters, with narrowbody airliner fuselages and a side cargo door, tall landing gear and lowmounted engines – a combination of characteristics necessitating relatively long sealed runways and dedicated cargo-handling services.

With the 757’s inherent limitations, including its inability to operate in austere environments without prepared runways, New Zealand’s C-130s have frequently been called upon to provide the kind of“strategic” capacity seldom required of other C-130s around the world.

With a relatively limited need for dedicated strategic airlift, arguably the RNZAF’s most pressing need then is for a modern, reliable tactical airlift capability to replace (and exceed) that provided by its much-loved but extremely well-used C-130s.

As they near the end of their lives, even after their life extension program, New Zealand’s C-130s are showing their age – in serviceability if not in appearance – with each new breakdown reported gleefully by a military-bashing press.

The cost of replacing both the 757s and the C-130s will be significant so it is essential that their respective replacements are effective and provide value for money for New Zealand taxpayers.

It is also essential that due process be followed in order to ensure New Zealand gets the right aircraft for the jobs they will be required to do for the next half century.

There has been controversy in New Zealand recently around what is believed to be a strong push by some government ministers to obtain Boeing C-17 Globemasters for the NZDF. Boeing is winding up C-17 production this year after it completes the last of 10 ‘white tail’ aircraft it is building on spec without a customer. Two of those have already been sold to Australia, Canada has requested a single example, and other existing and new C-17s customers are showing interest in the remainder, hence the need to evaluate any C-17 acquisition in the near term.

Then in February Defence Minister Gerry Brownlee published a news release highlighting the capabilities of a visiting RAAF C-17 (which delivered 50 tonnes of sandstone to Wellington for an Australian war memorial).

While the C-17 may not prove to be the best solution for New Zealand, we owe it to ourselves to look at it. GERRY BROWNLEE

“The Ministry of Defence is in the process of receiving price and availability information on the C-17 from the United States government as part of its long-term review of airlift capability,” the Minister’s February 16 news release states.

“While the C-17 may not prove to be the best solution for New Zealand, we owe it to ourselves to look at it seriously while we can,” Brownlee said of viewing the RAAF C-17 while it was in Wellington.

While the C-17 has been generating headlines and ministerial interest, the most realistic alternative – particularly for New Zealand’s needs – the Airbus Defence and Space (Airbus DS) A400M – has been flying under the radar.

There is no doubting the C-17’s ability as a highly competent strategic airlifter and few would argue its ideal fit for Australia. But its suitability for New Zealand needs to be debated, not only a cost basis, but its ability, or otherwise, to meet the RNZAF’s need to operate into austere environments and small airfields around the South Pacific.

“There’s no question the C-17 is a magnificent strategic airlift aircraft but our needs are tactical not strategic,” New Zealand First Party’s Spokesperson for Defence, Ron Mark (an ex-NZ Army major) wrote in a December 2014 press release titled ‘C‑17 Fantasy Not for New Zealand’.

“There is no way we could justify the $US2 billion price tag to replace our Hercules fleet let alone operate them,” Mark said, “The cost is really our point because ‘budgetary limitations’ would likely land us with only two or maybe three C-17s. This means, yet again, we are trading numbers for size but two aircraft cannot be in three locations at the same time. ”In 2010, a British parliamentary paper quoted the hourly operating cost of the C-17 in RAF sercvice as £42,000 (NZ$82,300). At the same time, the C-130Js also operated by the RAF cost just £12,000 (NZ$23,500) per hour. These costs will undoubtedly have increased significantly in the intervening five years.

The question then becomes is the C-17 three and a half times more capable than the C-130J, especially in light of its inability to operate in the kinds of environments in which New Zealand’s C-130s predominantly operate? The ongoing cost of operating C-17s looms large for a country as small as New Zealand, which the guiding principles in the Defence White Paper 2010 recognise: “Cabinet will be presented with a detailed business case for each significant capital acquisition. The business case will be fully costedincluding whole-of-life capital and operating expenditure, as well as options for ownership. ” Another consideration aligned with costs must be the future availability of spares and support.

Boeing operates a support program for C-17 operators, which Australia participates in, but there is no realistic option for completely “tailored” support packages for a few smaller customers.

Airbus DS, meanwhile, provides an “open-ended” range of full inservice support (FISS) options for its customers and its aircraft are at the start of their useful lives with spares and support facilities in full and ongoing production.

Another option would be cooperating with Australia in supporting a small NZ C-17 fleet – something Ron Mark vigorously rejects. “Worse, if we purchased only a couple of C-17s, it is more likely these aircraft would combine with the Royal Australian Air Force in what our Prime Minister would talk up as some ‘ANZAC squadron’.

This would see 40 Squadron go the same way as 75 Squadron,” Mark said, referencing the loss of New Zealand’s air combat capability, A-4K Skyhawks operated by 75 Squadron (plus 2 Squadron which was based in Australia), which was retired over a decade ago.

“It is cut, cut, cut in terms of operational capability, but above all, operational flexibility. ” By sheer numbers it is in operational capability where the C-17 wins out in carrying a maximum of 75 tonnes, compared to the A400M’s 37 tonnes and the C-130H’s 19 tonnes. Of course carrying a maximum payload isextremely rare, all aircraft trade payload for range, and the question becomes what payload range ability, unprepared field ability and life cycle cost best meets New Zealand’s needs? It could be argued that every country’s military forces have unique needs; however, New Zealand’s geographical remoteness, its extensive economic exclusion zone, its responsibilities to its remote “neighbours” (most of who have no or limited infrastructure) around the South Pacific, and the need to support Antarctic missions, make the NZDF’s needs uniquely extreme. While Ron Mark was largely correct in saying New Zealand’s air transport needs are tactical rather than strategic, in fact the country has unique needs for both ‘tactically strategic’ and ‘strategically tactical’ air transport. The RNZAF’s current C-130Hs cannot provide the kind of strategic projection of military capability the NZDF occasionally needs – especially since the introduction of the NH90 helicopters into New Zealand service. Only two options exist to carry the NH90: the C-17 and the A400M. The A400M is both a strategic and a tactical airlifter.

Not only can it carry the NH90 helicopter, but also, with a cargo hold volume of 340m3, more than two and a half times that of the C-130, and a payload nearly twice that of the latest C-130J – the A400M can still operate into the same airstrips as those used by the C-130.

Other options like the C-130J or the yet-to-fly Embraer KC-390 are large enough to accommodate the NH90.

Also, neither the C-130J nor the KC-390 have the range to provide unrefuelled Antarctic support missions. This is seen as an essential requirement ever since a terrified government minister was a passenger aboard a flight to Antarctica that was forced to land in low visibility conditions when weather changed rapidly after the Boeing 757 had passed the point of no return.

All of New Zealand’s large aircraft types (757, C-130 and P-3 Orion) have at various times flown to the ice. However, none of the three are really suitable for Antarctic missions, with none having the range to reach Antarctica and return without refuelling. Both the C-17 and the A400M are capable of unrefuelled Antarctic missions from Christchurch with respectable loads.

Another example of New Zealand’s airlift needs is illustrated by the recent Cyclone Pam in Vanuatu. Vanuatu’s 82 small islands host a total of 30 airfields, only one of which, the international airport at Port Vila, is suitable for a C-17, while there are probably sevenmore airfields capable of handling an A400M.

The C-17 does have unprepared field capability, but does not realistically operate from unprepared airfields with any regularity. The simple physics of its size and weight make damage to less-than-ideal surfaces inevitable and its four jet engines are much more prone to foreign object damage (FOD) compared to prop-driven aircraft.

And Vanuatu is not a one-off and, as the 2014 DCP states: “The ability to respond quickly and effectively to humanitarian and disaster relief situations across our region is of particular importance. ” Events like Vanuatu’s recent cyclone are relatively common (and likely to become increasingly so as the global climate changes) and it is expected that New Zealand (and Australia) will lead the way in providing aid when such disasters occur in the Pacific.

It is also worth considering the recent Christchurch earthquake as an example of New Zealand’s potential domestic needs. When the quake struck Christchurch in 2011,

It would make sense to investigate a possible deal with Airbus DS for a combined A400M/ C295 package.

it was extremely fortunate that the airport’s runways were undamaged.

Had they been destroyed, as much of the city was, C-17s could not have landed any closer than the sealed runways at either Timaru (78nm south) or Blenheim (134nm north) – and then only with minimal loads. However, an A400M could have landed at the existing (unsealed) Ashburton airfield (44nm south). If necessary, a bulldozer and roller could have made either West Melton (10nm west) or Rangiora (15nm north) suitable for A400M operations within hours.

Cyclone Pam, meanwhile, also highlighted that since the demise of its Andovers in the late 1990s, the RNZAF has had no medium airlift capacity and that – despite the omission of a medium airlift capacity in the 2014 DCP – aircraft like the Airbus DS C295 or Alenia C-27J would have been able to utilise more than 20 different airfields in Vanuatu.

Despite the notable absence of a medium airlift platform in the latest DCP, the NZDF’s need for medium airlift cannot be ignored. While New Zealand definitely needs at least some aircraft large enough to carry NH90 helicopters, large aircraft are not always going to be suitable for everyday tactical airlift or appropriate for carrying (much more common) smaller loads.

States section 5. 5 of the Defence White Paper 2010: “New Zealand’s contributions beyond our region will ordinarily be scaled to the size of the NZDF. ” The old Andover was the right size for New Zealand but was hamstrung by its extremely limited payload/range performance.

Fortunately, aviation technology has developed a long way since the Andover’s time. Today, the right aircraft could provide not only high-performance, long-range tactical airlift into short and unprepared strips in austere environments, but also, could be converted at short notice to supplement the RNZAF’s P-3K Orions in the surveillance/patrol role by using lightweight palletised equipment pods – an increasingly favoured option for a number of P-3-equipped defence forces around the world.

In light of the desire expressed in the Defence White Paper 2010 to investigate “innovative ownership options for a range of capital assets” it would make sense for the New Zealand government to investigate a possible deal with Airbus DS for a combined A400M/C295 package. Such a two-type deal would simultaneously provide heavy strategic and tactical airlift capability, as well as much-needed medium airlift and supplementary surveillance/patrol capability. A tailored support package – with guarantees for serviceability built into a contract – could also reduce costs and risks to the NZDF.

Conversely, if New Zealand were to pursue a C-17 deal, the country would arguably still need to address the medium-tactical airlift question, as it does replacement of the P-3K Orions.

Here a C-17/C-130J model mix could work – Lockheed Martin offers the SC-130J ‘Sea Herc’ with a maritime surveillance mission system pallet. But that looms as a very expensive option.

Whatever options are chosen, it is accepted by politicians and service chiefs alike that the replacement of the air transport component is unavoidable and will be an expensive proposition.

The decisions made in the next few years will affect the RNZAF’s air transport capability for the next half century.