Royal New Zealand Air Force

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
That is complete poppycock.

The 757 is in high demand, especially on transatlantic flights, to date there is no aircraft available from either Boeing or Airbus that can fly the routes a 757 can. The closest being the A321 LR NEO which isn't in service yet, it's still a paper plane. American carriers will snap up any 757 they can get, Delta just bought 5 giving them a fleet of 127 757's.

Many airlines regret not ordering it and I'm sue if Boeing could build new ones they would.
I know it's a long weekend but jeez. How the RNZAF operate their B757s and how airlines operate theirs are two completely different stories. The RNZAF is not in the airline busines, so it does not have anywhere near the same number of cycles per aircraft, nor does it have a similar operating model. So what Volk said is not poppycock as you claim. Maybe you should do some reading and learning before launching against someone who perchance happens to be somewhat more knowledgeable about defence matters than you or I.
 

Zero Alpha

New Member
I know it's a long weekend but jeez.
Too right.

This thread needs a change in direction. So, here goes:

Putting aside airlift types, what should NZDF do to maximise their availability for operations and ensure personnel (from all services) are familiar with them?

Where should they be based?

What opportunities does a change in equipment open up?
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Although self evident to some in here already, how about we not let this thread deteriorate into hans christian andersen mode......
 

Gracie1234

Well-Known Member
Just taking a step back.
What does everyone believe our airlift requriements are?
How much of what equipment/personal and where to and how often?
What is the most significant event we should be able to contribute to or handle ourselves?
At the moment we have been discussing a lot of equipment but it is hard to understand why people prefer various options.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Too right.

This thread needs a change in direction. So, here goes:

Putting aside airlift types, what should NZDF do to maximise their availability for operations and ensure personnel (from all services) are familiar with them?

Where should they be based?

What opportunities does a change in equipment open up?
Basing - we have to look at aircraft types a bit here. I am unsure whether or not a fully loaded C17 could lift out of Whenuapai. I also think that at some stage in the future, the RNZAF will be forced out if Whenuapai by the NIMBY syndrome, as more housing is built in the area. Hobsonville, which used to be RNZAF until recent times, is now full of housing and the current housing situation in Auckland will only exacerbate the situation further for Whenuapai as more housing is built close to it.

Woodbourne has no real room for runway extensions with vineyards at the western end and a waterway at the eastern end. Beyond the waterway their could be more vineyards. Also the eastern approach / departure route is over Blenheim which is about 9km from the base. Finally Woodbourne is the only Defence establishment in the region. Hence that only leaves Ohakea. There should be room there for expansion but it woud involve major infrastructure expenditure. Ohakea is also close to Linton which is the main Army Camp, hence it does make sense to locate the air transport assets to Ohakea. Finally Ohakea is more central than Auckland, so it would also make sense to locate 5 Sqn there as well. 6 Sqn is a different matter and needs to remain in Auckland as long as the RNZN maintains it's main fleet presence in Auckland.
 

KiwiRob

Well-Known Member
I know it's a long weekend but jeez. How the RNZAF operate their B757s and how airlines operate theirs are two completely different stories. The RNZAF is not in the airline busines, so it does not have anywhere near the same number of cycles per aircraft, nor does it have a similar operating model. So what Volk said is not poppycock as you claim. Maybe you should do some reading and learning before launching against someone who perchance happens to be somewhat more knowledgeable about defence matters than you or I.
My point exactly, ngati, someone should not make comments when they don't understand what they are talking about, put simply our 757's aren't military aircraft, so whether he's knowledgeable about defence matters doesn't come into it at all. The 757 are commercial aircraft, in that role there is currently no other commercial narrow body twin jet in service today or planned with the ability to do what the 757 can do.

In terms of pure operating cost ie avegas and maintenance a low hour RNZAF 757 shouldn't cost more top operate than a commercial 757 in commercial service.

The airlines didn't really get the 757 when it was first launched, it really came into it's on after it went out of production, about this point airlines realised there was not better aircraft for use on long thin transaltantic routes between smaller city pairs. Cities where using a 767, A332 was too much aircraft and not economical. The 737 isn't able to do the job, Boeing know this, the Airbus A321 NEO LR can do some missions but not all.

Until someone proves me wrong, I stand behind my statement that the 757 is a unique aircraft with no replacement. But I ber when Boeing finally launch the 737 replacement Y1 in the 2030's there will be a 757 replacement. Boeing have said this.
 

RubiconNZ

The Wanderer
Basing - we have to look at aircraft types a bit here. I am unsure whether or not a fully loaded C17 could lift out of Whenuapai. I also think that at some stage in the future, the RNZAF will be forced out if Whenuapai by the NIMBY syndrome, as more housing is built in the area. Hobsonville, which used to be RNZAF until recent times, is now full of housing and the current housing situation in Auckland will only exacerbate the situation further for Whenuapai as more housing is built close to it.

Woodbourne has no real room for runway extensions with vineyards at the western end and a waterway at the eastern end. Beyond the waterway their could be more vineyards. Also the eastern approach / departure route is over Blenheim which is about 9km from the base. Finally Woodbourne is the only Defence establishment in the region. Hence that only leaves Ohakea. There should be room there for expansion but it woud involve major infrastructure expenditure. Ohakea is also close to Linton which is the main Army Camp, hence it does make sense to locate the air transport assets to Ohakea. Finally Ohakea is more central than Auckland, so it would also make sense to locate 5 Sqn there as well. 6 Sqn is a different matter and needs to remain in Auckland as long as the RNZN maintains it's main fleet presence in Auckland.
I had some time so I did some research, according to Boeing and a few other places the length required for MTOW of the C-17 is 7600 feet/ 2.31 km.

According to the Waitakere Council "Information Pack" when they had a particular lust for commercial development (which is an interesting read actually).
Whenuapai Fact Sheet

The current runway length is 2031 metres however " Ultimately it could be extended to a maximum possible runway length of 2,711 m." So we are a bit short. Without further knowledge of safety buffers for length I am a bit uncertain on requirements but I imagine a could significant proportion of operations would not require max take off load. I could be wrong this purely speculation on my part and would very happily stand corrected.

I imagine any purchase of strategic mission aircraft will require facility upgrades anyway, so this could be incorporated into this or on the occasions requiring max take off loads either happen at Ohakea or perhaps even at Auckland Airport through the freight terminal rather than requiring a runaway upgrade.

Again purely speculation on my part feel free to deconstruct it as you will.


Edit I found this which stimulated my Geography/Planning background Unified Facilities Criteria

This 480 odd page document details a lot of information about runway type requirements, this details everything you might want to know about US construction and requirements across all the services apron clearances, hard stand areas, clear zones, etc. Obviously a bit specialised but it was interesting for me anyway.

Of particular interest is the C130-C-17 Section (Chapter 7)

Which details the C-17 LZ Runway Lengths requried seperated by weights and Runway Condition rating. However I see this post ballooning so I will end it here for now. I hope the information is of interest for some of you. Certainly some light reading for a rainy afternoon haha.
 
Last edited:

Zero Alpha

New Member
It's been interesting to spend time at Ohakea over the past few years. As the base development progressed, there was almost a visible lift in attitude from people stationed there. Yes, new facilities have changed work practices, but there is a notable change in attitude too. Pride in the work people do has always been there, but there is now a sense that they are being invested in with the sorts of facilities people expect in a modern professional workforce. That's a very real lesson.

There needs to be an RNZAF presence in Auckland. Coordination with Navy is a big part of it, but so is being closer to the Pacific Islands. The biggest factor is probably the recruitment advantages. I can't see the prospect of living in Bulls for 20 years as being very appealing to a teenage recruit from the North Shore.

But having an air force presence in Auckland doesn't mean there needs to be an RNZAF base. I wasn't pleased when National announced Whenuapai would be retained. I thought it was the easy route to take and seemed to be driven by a perceived need to reduce the number of issues the election would be contested on.
Going back through the announcements about retention, Wayne Mapp only seemed to be talking about the importance of keeping maritime assets (Orions and Seasprites) in Auckland. Transport didn't seem to be ever mentioned.

As a first choice for Auckland, I'd be moving the transport fleet to a dedicated facility at Ohakea. That facility needs to include full mockups of the cargo area for whatever transports we have, so loadmasters, air movements personnel and Army transport personnel can practice load and off load without needing to tie up an airframe.

I think Whenuapai should be sold. Much of the base is old, and the costs of operating an airbase for a small number of aircraft really don't stack up. Limitations of things like explosives (which can't be stored on base) mean that it doesn't have a huge amount of utility. I'd like to see the Crown invest in AIA, contributing to the cost of a second runway, and building purpose-built facilities for the Orions and Seasprites (and their replacements) on a dedicated area near the second runway. That may mean a need for a refurbishment at Papakura for barracks, etc.

Alternatively, Papukara should be sold and the SAS and TF shifted to Whenuapai.

I don't see the point of keeping Linton camp. The ranges can't be used, the facilities largely date from when the battalion moved back from Singapore (or older), and the place is in desperate need of some investment. There is a lot more land available at Ohakea, and shifting Army there will continue the momentum from establishing Joint Forces. Combined facilities are cheaper to operate (which is a bonus), but it also means a wider range of better facilities could be developed.

I'm much more relaxed about Woodburn. The defence presence there is small, the is an existing civilian airport and the co-location with the polyptych seems to work. There isn't a high marginal cost in operating the facility.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
ZA, there is also another option which although expensive at the start would have benefits further down the line. Concentrating all our airborne assets at Ohakea is putting all our eggs in one basket hence maybe it would be wise to look at adding airbase facilities to Burnham Military Camp. Pluses recruiting and retention wise that way. That way you have two joint RNZAF / NZ Army bases with room for expansion on both, plus both are in rural settings with remote chances of urban intrusion. The Burnham expansion could be funded by the proceeds of the Whenuapai sale.

6 Sqn could go move to the airfield at Dairy Flat, aka North Shore Airfield. Room there to build maintenance and support facilities, plus rentacops to secure the facilities. Barracks etc., would be at Philomel (Devenport).
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
My point exactly, ngati, someone should not make comments when they don't understand what they are talking about, put simply our 757's aren't military aircraft, so whether he's knowledgeable about defence matters doesn't come into it at all. The 757 are commercial aircraft, in that role there is currently no other commercial narrow body twin jet in service today or planned with the ability to do what the 757 can do.
No. Do not turn my argument around. This is not a fanboy forum. Read the MODS WARNING. I will not discuss this further.
 

Cadredave

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
whats driving reformation?

is NZ starting to embrace the "superbase" concept?
We were heading down that route but discovered very quick that we dont have the funds to see it thru, ie Linton relocating to Ohakea now it's more about relocating certain units ie Army move ops in the near future to Ohakea.

CD
 

Zero Alpha

New Member
ZA, there is also another option which although expensive at the start would have benefits further down the line. Concentrating all our airborne assets at Ohakea is putting all our eggs in one basket hence maybe it would be wise to look at adding airbase facilities to Burnham Military Camp. Pluses recruiting and retention wise that way. That way you have two joint RNZAF / NZ Army bases with room for expansion on both, plus both are in rural settings with remote chances of urban intrusion. The Burnham expansion could be funded by the proceeds of the Whenuapai sale.

6 Sqn could go move to the airfield at Dairy Flat, aka North Shore Airfield. Room there to build maintenance and support facilities, plus rentacops to secure the facilities. Barracks etc., would be at Philomel (Devenport).
I was trying to reduce the number of airfields, not add to them :) I don't see any real issues with a move to Mangere. It would be useful to keep the rotary and fixed wing together. Can't see much point in moving to Dairy Flat. Mechanics Bay could be made to work though.
 

RegR

Well-Known Member
So Nepal is in desperate need of helicopters, guess our NH90s will have some reason/problem why they again cannot be deployed. Kind of why we got them but still not good to go hmmm really starting to wonder.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
So Nepal is in desperate need of helicopters, guess our NH90s will have some reason/problem why they again cannot be deployed. Kind of why we got them but still not good to go hmmm really starting to wonder.
I am sure we could get them there with the help of our Aussie mates. The actual problem at the moment is there is very little room at the airport at Katmandu for aircraft. Secondly, the Nepali govt requested that we stand down our USAR team after accepting the teams offer of help. It is a govt to govt thing. If we could get them to India and base them in India they wouldn't be a strain on the Nepali infrastructure of which very little, if any, is functioning. Having lived through the Christchurch quakes I can state from personal experience that getting around an earthquake devastated area is very challenging, especially in the first few weeks. We were lucky because we are a developed country. Nepal isn't and it will be exponentially more difficult to work there without impacting upon the very poor local infrastructure.
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
I am sure we could get them there with the help of our Aussie mates. The actual problem at the moment is there is very little room at the airport at Katmandu for aircraft. Secondly, the Nepali govt requested that we stand down our USAR team after accepting the teams offer of help. It is a govt to govt thing. If we could get them to India and base them in India they wouldn't be a strain on the Nepali infrastructure of which very little, if any, is functioning. Having lived through the Christchurch quakes I can state from personal experience that getting around an earthquake devastated area is very challenging, especially in the first few weeks. We were lucky because we are a developed country. Nepal isn't and it will be exponentially more difficult to work there without impacting upon the very poor local infrastructure.
Nepal has terrible infrastructure to begin with. It is one of the poorest and lease developed in the world (sitting somewhere around 20th of the worlds poorest/lease developed).

Not much is getting past Katmandu at this stage, the few roads (they aren't roads really, tracks that are 70% passable by trucks on good days) are still closed. Aftershocks, lack of heavy equipment etc. This stuff needs to come from India or China.

There is actually a huge security issue in Nepal which is going to come to a head. You have an earthquake hitting when there looks like to be significant civil unrest as well. You really don't have a government (effective?) in Nepal either so things are more complicated. Things are pretty close to failed state status.
 

Kiwigov

Member
We were heading down that route but discovered very quick that we dont have the funds to see it thru, ie Linton relocating to Ohakea now it's more about relocating certain units ie Army move ops in the near future to Ohakea.

CD
I take it a key concern for RNZAF cadre is also the relocation impact on spouses - especially the lack of local career opportunities - and educational facilities for families. The CDF is putting an emphasis on improved care of troops and families. Given the recent experience of near-crippling levels of turnover, and the constant competition for skilled people from the private sector, this must be a major risk of seeking to amalgamate RNZAF units at Ohakea. Whenuapai has a much greater retention factor for senior (hell, junior) RNZAF people, not least due to their investments in local housing. IIRC, similar concerns counted against a mid-2000s proposal (from developers) to relocate the RNZN from Devonport to Whangarei.
 

Zero Alpha

New Member
I take it a key concern for RNZAF cadre is also the relocation impact on spouses - especially the lack of local career opportunities - and educational facilities for families. The CDF is putting an emphasis on improved care of troops and families. Given the recent experience of near-crippling levels of turnover, and the constant competition for skilled people from the private sector, this must be a major risk of seeking to amalgamate RNZAF units at Ohakea. Whenuapai has a much greater retention factor for senior (hell, junior) RNZAF people, not least due to their investments in local housing. IIRC, similar concerns counted against a mid-2000s proposal (from developers) to relocate the RNZN from Devonport to Whangarei.
There shouldn't be any need to relocate if Linton units were moved to Ohakea. Most will live in Palmerston North anyway.

Similarly with Whenuapai. Shifting air ops to Mangare wouldn't be a major.

Jobs for spouses/partners is an important issue though, mainly because they tend to be paid better than service people.

As far as turnover figures go though, turnover hasn't been particularly high by historic levels. Even if you look at the late 70s/early 80s, there isn't a huge difference.
 
Top