Fighter
Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Air Traffic Control Time Certified In Pos 1 (mon) 8
Workload; Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
We have an unusual operation at Denver while BKF AFB is working on their runways. The local F16 squadron is based at DEN temporarily and can accept (and will request) either Runway 35R or 17L without regard to the flow of traffic.  We were landing and departing south when Aircraft Y called requesting a visual approach to Runway 35R. I vectored Aircraft Y clear of other traffic and issued a descent. My TM called DEN Tower with the inbound. I cleared him for the VA shortly after he called the field in sight. I watched as he approached the field and I saw another limited data block start to roll on the adjacent runway; 17R; in the opposite direction of Aircraft Y.  Aircraft Y was still about 15 miles south of the airport but the indicated ground speed was 550 knots.  Aircraft X tagged up and I saw that it was filed on the STAKR RNAV route; which would directly conflict with the Aircraft Y flight. I called Local 2 to issue a vector when I heard Aircraft X call me on the radio.  I issued a vector to Aircraft X of 210 and told him to make it a tight turn.  I then told him to turn to heading 230.  Local 2 called me and without waiting I told her that I had turned Aircraft X (I may have omitted the call sign and just said 'I turned him to a 230 heading' as there was no doubt what the subject of conversation would be.)  She keyed up while on the line and told Aircraft Y to maintain 100.  I stopped Aircraft X's climb at 90.  At some point the land line connection terminated.  Aircraft X was eventually cleared to FL230 and direct STAKR; and Aircraft Y seemed to arrive without further complication.I don't know if there was a break in the chain of communication in the Tower and the Local Controller was surprised by the opposite direction traffic; or if she had intended to vector the departure and for whatever reason he didn't get it.  It may be that while the F16's will be landing against the flow we specify 'opposite direction' or some other phraseology even though there is no directly opposite direction traffic (nobody to Runway 17L).  This should not mean that when we are in a north/south configuration we need to call 'opposite direction' on every arrival. That would be overly cumbersome.
Aircraft X departed RWY 17R RNAV to RAYDR.  Aircraft Y was on a visual approach RWY 35R.  Aircraft X was cleared on a collision course up to 100 (10;000 feet) and Aircraft Y was given visual approach clearance to RWY 35R.  No separation was assured; and the Supervisor caught the NMAC and made LC2 fix the situation by stopping Aircraft Y at 110 (11;000).  The TRACON Controller turned Aircraft X to the right to avoid collision.  Per the national order the opposite direction aircraft must be off the runway prior to a 10 M final and these would not have been in place.  The supervisor called the TRACON and made them 'spin' the 35R arrival.  Our Supervisor called the TRACON and the other end of the line said; 'We looked at the Aerobahn and saw you had no one coming.'   Aerobahn is not approved to separate airplanes.These F16 operations at DIA were done via TERRIBLE COORDINATION that resulted in an NMAC.  A system service review needs to take place.Also; the Supervisor needs to be commended for saving the day not once but three times in a half hour.
Numerous controller report of issue with opposite direction arrival and normal configuration departure that leads to a NMAC.