Royal New Zealand Air Force

[Rob c]

That was one of the sources I came across when attempting to determine the runway requirements for the P-8A Poseidon. I had a few questions on it so I am waiting to here back from an airline pilot I know regarding some of the data, as the graphs on p. 151 and subsequent pages have multiple temperature references which are different. More specifically, the lines which indicate pressure altitude also have a temperature listed, when the overall graph also lists a temperature of Standard Day +nn temperature.

This is correct, what is needed is the worse case readings (temp and pressure) applicable to the particular airfield concerned and the say 90% norm and that will give you an idea of the suitability of that airfield for the intended operations. This will tell you what you can achieve for 90% of the time and what you can achieve all of the time.
What is evident from the info is that both Whenuapai and to a lesser extent Ohakea would be a compromise for P8 operations. However both Auckland and Christchurch international airfields would not.

 

[kiwipatriot69]

This is correct, what is needed is the worse case readings (temp and pressure) applicable to the particular airfield concerned and the say 90% norm and that will give you an idea of the suitability of that airfield for the intended operations. This will tell you what you can achieve for 90% of the time and what you can achieve all of the time.
What is evident from the info is that both Whenuapai and to a lesser extent Ohakea would be a compromise for P8 operations. However both Auckland and Christchurch international airfields would not.

Surely the proposed upgrades to our bases in the defence white paper would factor in future proofing, what with the likely event of larger foreign military aircraft like P8, C-17 or similar allies wanting to use our bases for a defence exersize, or even deliver humanitarian aid in case of another disaster? Not just the possible introduction of larger aircraft of our own.Yes supplies for emergency relief could be using commercial airfields, but for security concerns for an exersize and equipment involved?

 

[MrConservative]

All of this also does not even get into the question of how often any potential Kiwi P-8A Poseidons would need to take off from a RNZAF base under 'extreme conditions' at MTOW, which is what led to the USN recommending an 8,000 ft runway for a P-8A Poseidon at MTOW.

And in an extreme situation - logic would suggest that the vignette would also involve the deployment of RAAF assets including their P-8A's and KC-30's.

 

[Rob c]

Surely the proposed upgrades to our bases in the defence white paper would factor in future proofing, what with the likely event of larger foreign military aircraft like P8, C-17 or similar allies wanting to use our bases for a defence exersize, or even deliver humanitarian aid in case of another disaster? Not just the possible introduction of larger aircraft of our own.Yes supplies for emergency relief could be using commercial airfields, but for security concerns for an exersize and equipment involved?

The P8 is rather an extreme example when it comes to military aircraft that would normally come to NZ. Most don't have a problem and the C 17 fits our runways easily. I am unaware of any serious proposed, lengthening the runways at either Whenuapai or Ohakea and suspect that at Whenuapai , a meaningful increase may not be practical. As a footnote, a past incident was when Aussie Mirage's came to Ohakea, (I was there at the time) for the return trip home, they had to fly to AIA to top up their fuel load as OH was not long enough for a MTOW Mirage.

 

[Todjaeger]

The P8 is rather an extreme example when it comes to military aircraft that would normally come to NZ. Most don't have a problem and the C 17 fits our runways easily. I am unaware of any serious proposed, lengthening the runways at either Whenuapai or Ohakea and suspect that at Whenuapai , a meaningful increase may not be practical. As a footnote, a past incident was when Aussie Mirage's came to Ohakea, (I was there at the time) for the return trip home, they had to fly to AIA to top up their fuel load as OH was not long enough for a MTOW Mirage.

With the types of military aircraft that NZ operates now and likely into the future, I suspect runway lengths are going to become an increasing issue.

As it stands now, the Whenuapai runway is too short in certain conditions for the B757's in service to take off at MTOW. If the RNZAF replaces the B757's with another similarly-sized (or larger) civilian airliner for the strategic lift portion of the FAMC, there is likely to be a problem with aircraft attempting MTOW take offs.

The RNZAF may very well need to establish co-located units at the major Kiwi airports if the base runways cannot realistically be lengthened, and it is deemed important that aircraft be able to operate at MTOW.

 

[kiwipatriot69]

The P8 is rather an extreme example when it comes to military aircraft that would normally come to NZ. Most don't have a problem and the C 17 fits our runways easily. I am unaware of any serious proposed, lengthening the runways at either Whenuapai or Ohakea and suspect that at Whenuapai , a meaningful increase may not be practical. As a footnote, a past incident was when Aussie Mirage's came to Ohakea, (I was there at the time) for the return trip home, they had to fly to AIA to top up their fuel load as OH was not long enough for a MTOW Mirage.

What of the dimensions of say, a C2 Kawasaki or A400 M, C17, would the hangers themselves be adequate, as is?

 

[Todjaeger]

What of the dimensions of say, a C2 Kawasaki or A400 M, C17, would the hangers themselves be adequate, as is?

I think the concern has been about whether the runway is long enough to permit loaded aircraft to take off. Hangars can likely be expanded or knocked down & replaced with larger hangars if need be. It would not necessarily be easy, but IMO that would likely be easier to accomplish than extending a runway by 500 or 1,000 m.

From what I have read, it looks like a C-17 at MTOW would be able to manage from RNZAF Base Ohakea, but would find RNZAF Bases Whenuapai and Woodbourne too short, needing a ~7,740 ft/2,359 m runway to take off.

I have not seen figures put out for the C-2, and I honestly do not trust the A400M figures at present given the issues that programme has been having.

 

[MrConservative]

The RNZAF may very well need to establish co-located units at the major Kiwi airports if the base runways cannot realistically be lengthened, and it is deemed important that aircraft be able to operate at MTOW.

Revealed: Auckland Airport's new runway almost 1km longer than originally approved

The 2nd 2983m runway at AIA is due by 2028. It was announced last year that the new runway would be 1000m longer than originally planned. Going back 15 years there were plans when Bob Harvey was Mayor out West Auckland for a dual use airport and one of the things to come out of the concept scoping was the proposal to extend the current WP runway to 2711m.

I have long held the view that a military annex at AIA is where the RNZAF should be based in Auckland in the future as part of a Joint Mil-Civ base. There are huge advantages on a wider Govt policy level for them to exit WP. It would provide for a huge tract of greenfields land for new housing and commercial activity. That new infrastructure at the new AIA site would easily be able to be paid for by the sale of the WP land. Money would be saved by not having to extend WP out to the maximum allowable of 2711m. It would eliminate the issues around approach and landing around WP - Waitakere Ranges and Greenhithe Hills. It is not just the 311ha of the WP that will be gained. The base effects 1500ha in the surrounding Brighams Creek area area due to MD1 planning controls in place.

If busy AFB's such a Elgin and Charleston USAF and Komeke JASDF are dual use airports I can see no reason why this cannot happen in Auckland. There is plenty of land to the north of where the proposed new runway and terminal will be located. Besides the footprint required to house 1/2 a dozen C-130's, four P-8's and eight SH-2G helicopters does not need to be 311 hectares as it is at present. In many respects throwing money at WP in terms if a runway extension is wasteful. That money would be better spent on a new annex facility with fit for purpose hangers, hardstands, offices and modern lowrise on base apartments at AIA on a more compact footprint. The value of the sale of WP land could also be used to underwrite further upgrades to RNZAF air movements infrastructure at CHC.

 

[ASSAIL]

Revealed: Auckland Airport's new runway almost 1km longer than originally approved

The 2nd 2983m runway at AIA is due by 2028. It was announced last year that the new runway would be 1000m longer than originally planned. Going back 15 years there were plans when Bob Harvey was Mayor out West Auckland for a dual use airport and one of the things to come out of the concept scoping was the proposal to extend the current WP runway to 2711m.

I have long held the view that a military annex at AIA is where the RNZAF should be based in Auckland in the future as part of a Joint Mil-Civ base. There are huge advantages on a wider Govt policy level for them to exit WP. It would provide for a huge tract of greenfields land for new housing and commercial activity. That new infrastructure at the new AIA site would easily be able to be paid for by the sale of the WP land. Money would be saved by not having to extend WP out to the maximum allowable of 2711m. It would eliminate the issues around approach and landing around WP - Waitakere Ranges and Greenhithe Hills. It is not just the 311ha of the WP that will be gained. The base effects 1500ha in the surrounding Brighams Creek area area due to MD1 planning controls in place.

If busy AFB's such a Elgin and Charleston USAF and Komeke JASDF are dual use airports I can see no reason why this cannot happen in Auckland. There is plenty of land to the north of where the proposed new runway and terminal will be located. Besides the footprint required to house 1/2 a dozen C-130's, four P-8's and eight SH-2G helicopters does not need to be 311 hectares as it is at present. In many respects throwing money at WP in terms if a runway extension is wasteful. That money would be better spent on a new annex facility with fit for purpose hangers, hardstands, offices and modern lowrise on base apartments at AIA on a more compact footprint. The value of the sale of WP land could also be used to underwrite further upgrades to RNZAF air movements infrastructure at CHC.

Darwin is a shared facility. It is owned by the RAAF and is also a busy civilian airport particularly with the large volume of general aviation servicing remote communities.
Air traffic control for the airport is also by uniformed personnel.
It becomes particularly busy during exercises such as Pitch Black where a large number of combat aircraft use the airport during all hours.
I can see no impediment to similar arraignments at Auckland if that is what the government and the RNZF desire.

 

[ngatimozart]

Revealed: Auckland Airport's new runway almost 1km longer than originally approved

The 2nd 2983m runway at AIA is due by 2028. It was announced last year that the new runway would be 1000m longer than originally planned. Going back 15 years there were plans when Bob Harvey was Mayor out West Auckland for a dual use airport and one of the things to come out of the concept scoping was the proposal to extend the current WP runway to 2711m.

I have long held the view that a military annex at AIA is where the RNZAF should be based in Auckland in the future as part of a Joint Mil-Civ base. There are huge advantages on a wider Govt policy level for them to exit WP. It would provide for a huge tract of greenfields land for new housing and commercial activity. That new infrastructure at the new AIA site would easily be able to be paid for by the sale of the WP land. Money would be saved by not having to extend WP out to the maximum allowable of 2711m. It would eliminate the issues around approach and landing around WP - Waitakere Ranges and Greenhithe Hills. It is not just the 311ha of the WP that will be gained. The base effects 1500ha in the surrounding Brighams Creek area area due to MD1 planning controls in place.

If busy AFB's such a Elgin and Charleston USAF and Komeke JASDF are dual use airports I can see no reason why this cannot happen in Auckland. There is plenty of land to the north of where the proposed new runway and terminal will be located. Besides the footprint required to house 1/2 a dozen C-130's, four P-8's and eight SH-2G helicopters does not need to be 311 hectares as it is at present. In many respects throwing money at WP in terms if a runway extension is wasteful. That money would be better spent on a new annex facility with fit for purpose hangers, hardstands, offices and modern lowrise on base apartments at AIA on a more compact footprint. The value of the sale of WP land could also be used to underwrite further upgrades to RNZAF air movements infrastructure at CHC.

They could do the same at Harewood (Christchurch International Airport) with plenty of room on the north-west side of the airport for a RNZAF establishment.

 

[StereoGeek]

Would the NZDF have to wait until 2028 to move to Auckland International Airport? Regardless, it seems like a really good idea. That land at Whenuapai must be worth gold! What would the major con's be against operating from a civilian airport aside from the increase in traffic? Changi is another example of a shared airport. Last time I took off from there we were in the taxi queue with four F-16C/D's...

 

[MrConservative]

Would the NZDF have to wait until 2028 to move to Auckland International Airport? Regardless, it seems like a really good idea.

Yes because there is no additional room on the existing AIA site that is available and the second runway and infrastructure wont be built until then.

That land at Whenuapai must be worth gold! What would the major con's be against operating from a civilian airport aside from the increase in traffic? Changi is another example of a shared airport. Last time I took off from there we were in the taxi queue with four F-16C/D's...

That land in my view is worth more to the nation as a future residential suburb with 5000 mixed mode dwellings (Studios through to detached 4BDRG) than as an elderly defence facility taking up space a huge amount of space for 13 fixed wing aircraft and 8 helicopters.

The rail project which has been given the green light to the Airport will take the edge off traffic flows. There has been talk of a proposed dedicated logistics corridor to connect the Airport to the Inland Port in nearly Wiri which will assist ton reducing heavy transport congestion. AIA is a major aviation engineering hub in which could present rationalisation of support for RNZAF aircraft based there and is also much closer to Rennie Lines / Papakura Army Camp and only about 2 minutes flight time further from WP to DNB. Housing is also more affordable in the southern suburbs than around West Harbour (WP) and certainly less than the North Shore (DNB).

 

[ngatimozart]

Yes because there is no additional room on the existing AIA site that is available and the second runway and infrastructure wont be built until then.



That land in my view is worth more to the nation as a future residential suburb with 5000 mixed mode dwellings (Studios through to detached 4BDRG) than as an elderly defence facility taking up space a huge amount of space for 13 fixed wing aircraft and 8 helicopters.

The rail project which has been given the green light to the Airport will take the edge off traffic flows. There has been talk of a proposed dedicated logistics corridor to connect the Airport to the Inland Port in nearly Wiri which will assist ton reducing heavy transport congestion. AIA is a major aviation engineering hub in which could present rationalisation of support for RNZAF aircraft based there and is also much closer to Rennie Lines / Papakura Army Camp and only about 2 minutes flight time further from WP to DNB. Housing is also more affordable in the southern suburbs than around West Harbour (WP) and certainly less than the North Shore (DNB).

Agree and they could build RNZAF married quarters out at Papakura. When I was at RPU Mangere (RNZAF section within the Air NZ engineering complex at AIA) we used to bus over from Whenuapai and Hobsonville each day, so no reason why the same couldn't be done from Papakura.

 

[KH-12]

I think the concern has been about whether the runway is long enough to permit loaded aircraft to take off. Hangars can likely be expanded or knocked down & replaced with larger hangars if need be. It would not necessarily be easy, but IMO that would likely be easier to accomplish than extending a runway by 500 or 1,000 m.

From what I have read, it looks like a C-17 at MTOW would be able to manage from RNZAF Base Ohakea, but would find RNZAF Bases Whenuapai and Woodbourne too short, needing a ~7,740 ft/2,359 m runway to take off.

I have not seen figures put out for the C-2, and I honestly do not trust the A400M figures at present given the issues that programme has been having.

I have seen a MTOW requirement of 2300M for the C2, which seems reasonable given one of its key design requirements was to operate from the smaller airfields in Japan

 

[KH-12]

Yes because there is no additional room on the existing AIA site that is available and the second runway and infrastructure wont be built until then.



That land in my view is worth more to the nation as a future residential suburb with 5000 mixed mode dwellings (Studios through to detached 4BDRG) than as an elderly defence facility taking up space a huge amount of space for 13 fixed wing aircraft and 8 helicopters.

The rail project which has been given the green light to the Airport will take the edge off traffic flows. There has been talk of a proposed dedicated logistics corridor to connect the Airport to the Inland Port in nearly Wiri which will assist ton reducing heavy transport congestion. AIA is a major aviation engineering hub in which could present rationalisation of support for RNZAF aircraft based there and is also much closer to Rennie Lines / Papakura Army Camp and only about 2 minutes flight time further from WP to DNB. Housing is also more affordable in the southern suburbs than around West Harbour (WP) and certainly less than the North Shore (DNB).

I think it is prudent to maintain Whenuapai as an airfield as if AIA was taken out by a natural disaster it provides the city with a backup facility, think of it as an insurance policy, I don’t think we need anymore nasty housing developments to blot the landscape

 

[MrConservative]

Agree and they could build RNZAF married quarters out at Papakura. When I was at RPU Mangere (RNZAF section within the Air NZ engineering complex at AIA) we used to bus over from Whenuapai and Hobsonville each day, so no reason why the same couldn't be done from Papakura.

No need to go as far as Papakura NG. There is plenty of space out there. All farm land at present land banked by the AIA. Check Google maps around Ihumatoa Road and the old Quarry site.

They can build this again like what they are doing at WP:

NZ Defence Force Rental Housing

 

[StereoGeek]

Yes because there is no additional room on the existing AIA site that is available and the second runway and infrastructure wont be built until then.



That land in my view is worth more to the nation as a future residential suburb with 5000 mixed mode dwellings (Studios through to detached 4BDRG) than as an elderly defence facility taking up space a huge amount of space for 13 fixed wing aircraft and 8 helicopters.

The rail project which has been given the green light to the Airport will take the edge off traffic flows. There has been talk of a proposed dedicated logistics corridor to connect the Airport to the Inland Port in nearly Wiri which will assist ton reducing heavy transport congestion. AIA is a major aviation engineering hub in which could present rationalisation of support for RNZAF aircraft based there and is also much closer to Rennie Lines / Papakura Army Camp and only about 2 minutes flight time further from WP to DNB. Housing is also more affordable in the southern suburbs than around West Harbour (WP) and certainly less than the North Shore (DNB).

I was more talking about Air Traffic, but good point. There must be those who argue against it, what is the premise behind their arguments I wonder?
Could this be the sort of long-term rationalisation that could include moving the Naval Base up to Whangerai? That seems like a good idea to me for similar reasons.

 

[MrConservative]

I think it is prudent to maintain Whenuapai as an airfield as if AIA was taken out by a natural disaster it provides the city with a backup facility, think of it as an insurance policy, I don’t think we need anymore nasty housing developments to blot the landscape

Hamilton is just 100kms away on the new Expressway. If there is a major disaster who says both AIA and WP wont be stuffed. Auckland needs housing mate. It is growing by 50000 people a year. Every year another Nelson or Whangarei. 2 million living their by the time the 2nd runway at AIA opens. The city is fast encroaching around WP anyway. Where in Auckland do you live anyway?

 

[MrConservative]

I was more talking about Air Traffic, but good point. There must be those who argue against it, what is the premise behind their arguments I wonder?

The model they use at Glasgow Preswick which is a RAF SAR Base and Civil Airport would work best where by RAF controller works with the Civ ATC team and protocols are in place.

There are always people who argue against things. NIMBY's. Funny thing is most NIMBY's never actually live anywhere near what they are protesting against.

Could this be the sort of long-term rationalisation that could include moving the Naval Base up to Whangerai? That seems like a good idea to me for similar reasons.

Nine Ha of inner harbour waterfront front at DNB. The site zoning changed over to a mix of commercial and med-high density residential would be worth hundreds of millions. Yes there would have to be a degree of environmental cleansing which would cost eight figures so I am led to believe - but not insurmountable.

Whangarei does seem like a plausible option. The main PoA eventually will likely go to Orere Point as a "Green Port". If the pressure is placed upon the Navy to also move from the inner Waitemata - Whangarei would be the best bet. We have discussed this over on the NZDF and RNZN pages from time to time.

 

[40 deg south]

Nine Ha of inner harbour waterfront front at DNB. The site zoning changed over to a mix of commercial and med-high density residential would be worth hundreds of millions. Yes there would have to be a degree of environmental cleansing which would cost eight figures so I am led to believe - but not insurmountable.

Whangarei does seem like a plausible option. The main PoA eventually will likely go to Orere Point as a "Green Port". If the pressure is place upon the Navy to also from the inner Waitemata - Whangarei would be the best bet. We have discussed this over on the NZDF and RNZN pages from time to time.

If a major shake-up of NZ military bases was on the cards, the logical time to announce it would have been as part of the 'Regeneration Plan' announced last year by the previous government.

Regenerating our estate | NZDF

I'm sceptical that the new government will a more daring, although the prospect of being able to squeeze a few thousand houses into West Auckland must be tempting. Incidentally, the website linked above doesn't mention runway extensions to any of the three RNZAF bases.

Once issue that may complicate moving Whenuapai operations to AIA is that Auckland is a sharemarket-listed company. They would only be interested if they were earning commercial returns on the land they own. This is different to Woodbourne, a much smaller military/civilian base where the airport is owned by the local council, and they are very happy to have the jobs/investment the Air Force provides.