Correction, It can land in 900 meters with a 26 ton cargo payload.
The take off distance for a full payload of 37.6 ton is 2,300 meters.
Royal New Zealand Air Force
- Thread starter Lucasnz
- Start date
The take off distance for a full payload of 37.6 ton is 2,300 meters.
Just a thought, do they have the facilities for handling bombs at WP when I was there in the late 60's that was all located at Hobsonville. In regard to the relocation of 5 Sqn, very possible and as I said before not necessarily to OH as this would involve an extra 40min transit each way to their main operating area, Treasury wont like that.
I Stand corrected, but that is still about 500 meters less than the P8. Used a bad example but point was that you cannot compare different weights of different aircraft types to gauge their runway performance.
.
Rob & Vonoobie, apologies for being the formatting police, but can you both please check your BB coding and preview your posts before posting when you are replying to posts. Would be greatly appreciated. [/QUOTE]
sorry to be ignorant ( getting to old for some terms) but what is BB coding?
Rob & Vonoobie, apologies for being the formatting police, but can you both please check your BB coding and preview your posts before posting when you are replying to posts. Would be greatly appreciated. [/QUOTE]
sorry to be ignorant ( getting to old for some terms) but what is BB coding?
No probs and you are not ignorant. It's just something new to learn and show the grandkids (in my case) that granddad is up with the play :rotfl It's the formatting coding for the posts. This explains it and how you use it.
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/misc.php?do=bbcode
Thanks I can now show my Great grand kids, the grand kids are old enough to figure it out for them selves.
No probs at all. It is sometimes difficult to keep up with the grandkids
Mind you I regard it as my mission to corrupt them as in teaching them some "bad" habits - keeps their parents on their toes :rotflTotally off forum subject, but what else are grandparents for?Then when you have had enough you just go, "Mum/Dad your problem".No probs at all. It is sometimes difficult to keep up with the grandkids
Last edited:
Yes agree as all our TEUs come down on the same ship as the americans every year so the End ones would/could just be extras if and when needed. This is why our NZDF offload teams play a major role for this particular part of the op for both bases.
Always good to have options though.
Yes has to do with bombing up in built up areas as has to be done in a relatively people free corner of the base which is hard to find in a major city. I guess a bomb going off plus a fuel loaded P3 will make for an impressive crater so the least distractions, interference and collateral damage the better. They set up a point right down the end of the runway away from base in a makeshift set up CW fire overwatch, ironically where they parked a rather dodgy looking russian freighter one year to refuel as well wherein the crew tried paying in cash (which is not done for obvious reasons), failing that probably vodka haha.
I see in the capital rebuild a purpose built arming point is to be built, good news as currently I think they just put up a 14x14 when required and work in the open. Also AF "bombs" are stored in the Waiouru ammo dump.
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Interesting timing, the five-year B200 lease contract with Hawker Pacific should be expiring at the end of 2017/early 2018.
Could be some interesting options depending on capability funding levels (eg the B350/ER types or what about a couple of C295 sized-types + a couple of Pilatus PC-24 type long range jets as per Mr C's recent suggestion)?
The latter would cover MEPT training for a variety of (future) platforms, HADR first response options to the Pacific, light-medium lift and even regional VIP (better still put the media on the 2nd jet and keep them to themselves - that'll make the pollies happy when on MFAT type tours ... they're bound to sign it off)
RNZAF has stated they are planning to bring AWO training back from Aussie (where they currently share time on RAAF B350) within 2-3 years, although seen no detail.Interesting timing, the five-year B200 lease contract with Hawker Pacific should be expiring at the end of 2017/early 2018.
Could be some interesting options depending on capability funding levels (eg the B350/ER types or what about a couple of C295 sized-types + a couple of Pilatus PC-24 type long range jets as per Mr C's recent suggestion)?
The latter would cover MEPT training for a variety of (future) platforms, HADR first response options to the Pacific, light-medium lift and even regional VIP (better still put the media on the 2nd jet and keep them to themselves - that'll make the pollies happy when on MFAT type tours ... they're bound to sign it off)
It is logical to assume the B200, or it's replacement (ie: 42 sqn) will pick up the AWO task, to add to MEPT & light transport. As to what will replace B200 (or if contract gets extended) is anyone's guess.
Mr C's idea is that the PC24 would replace the King Airs and fitted with a basic maritime surveillance radar with AIS capability, so that they could undertake EEZ surveillance as well. If the RNZAF went say P8, C2, KC46 / B737-800 & KC390 and if the PC24 was procured, the only turboprop in the RNZAF inventory would be the T6C Texan II trainer. If that was the case, MEPT could be done just as well by the PC24 as the King Air or any other twin turbine type.Interesting timing, the five-year B200 lease contract with Hawker Pacific should be expiring at the end of 2017/early 2018.
Could be some interesting options depending on capability funding levels (eg the B350/ER types or what about a couple of C295 sized-types + a couple of Pilatus PC-24 type long range jets as per Mr C's recent suggestion)?
The latter would cover MEPT training for a variety of (future) platforms, HADR first response options to the Pacific, light-medium lift and even regional VIP (better still put the media on the 2nd jet and keep them to themselves - that'll make the pollies happy when on MFAT type tours ... they're bound to sign it off)
I have to admit that, on the face of it, a P8A, C2, KC46, KC390 & PC24 fleet would be quite good.
Or they could just take the easy option, renew the lease and carry on as per. Common sense would be to use the oppourtunity to come up with a more multi-role approach but that is sometimes lacking within our govt.Interesting timing, the five-year B200 lease contract with Hawker Pacific should be expiring at the end of 2017/early 2018.
Could be some interesting options depending on capability funding levels (eg the B350/ER types or what about a couple of C295 sized-types + a couple of Pilatus PC-24 type long range jets as per Mr C's recent suggestion)?
The latter would cover MEPT training for a variety of (future) platforms, HADR first response options to the Pacific, light-medium lift and even regional VIP (better still put the media on the 2nd jet and keep them to themselves - that'll make the pollies happy when on MFAT type tours ... they're bound to sign it off)
With all this talk about capability I forgot had this definition of capability as used by Ministry of Defence / NZDF:
It is worth a read and I note that a new version was being formulated when this paper was written (2008). I also note that the Capability Management Framework that it follows has been based on the Canadian Defence Force CMF. (shudder)
Further into the paper it states that NZDF capability is not a linear development, instead taking a circular approach. This is because they have found that the narrow focus on the acquisition can lead to neglect of the full range of capability options; that the capability being acquired delivers vfm and performs as it is supposed to; and that a full analysis of capability options should be performed to solve the problems that the capability acquisition is intended to resolve.
It is worth a read and I note that a new version was being formulated when this paper was written (2008). I also note that the Capability Management Framework that it follows has been based on the Canadian Defence Force CMF. (shudder)
There are a couple of things to consider with respect to Whenuapei operations over the medium term.
1. The urgent demand for houses to be build on its site will increase until the demand pressure gets so much it will go the way of Hobsonville. It will be a subdivision.
2. The RNZAF presence in Auckland will be transferred to a 'sub base' facility at AIA which if plans head for fruition will have its 2150m second runway around 2025-2030. Maybe only 6 Sqd and 5 Sqd could remain with 40 Sqd going to OH or even both 40 & 5 Sqd going to an enlarged OH base.
The WP base is worth a considerable amount as it is on high value land if zone residential. It would fund a new smaller joint use facility at AIA and probably pay for further growth at OH.
I would not be surprised if this is at least raised or even happens.
1. The urgent demand for houses to be build on its site will increase until the demand pressure gets so much it will go the way of Hobsonville. It will be a subdivision.
2. The RNZAF presence in Auckland will be transferred to a 'sub base' facility at AIA which if plans head for fruition will have its 2150m second runway around 2025-2030. Maybe only 6 Sqd and 5 Sqd could remain with 40 Sqd going to OH or even both 40 & 5 Sqd going to an enlarged OH base.
The WP base is worth a considerable amount as it is on high value land if zone residential. It would fund a new smaller joint use facility at AIA and probably pay for further growth at OH.
I would not be surprised if this is at least raised or even happens.
I would say this is a very likely outcome, and while the govt ofd the day who does this should also look at selling Devonport Naval Base at the same time.
They'd even get more per sq metre for Devenport NB than WP. Both are prime real estate, but DNB more so.
Last edited: