ADG role requires training and skill

IN regard to Sergeant Bishop’s assertion in Air Force News (September 12) that ADGs should be absorbed by the infantry and the three Airfield Defence Squadrons should be “re-birthed” as Independent Rifle Companies: his view is a rather simplistic one and obviously made without full knowledge of the roles and tasks of ADGs. Nor the history of airfield defence and the complexities of vital asset protection on an airbase.

He also doesn’t seem to know that the Airfield Defence Squadrons based at Amberley aren’t the only units employing ADGs.

ADGs aren’t just employed as riflemen, gunners, signallers, drivers etc. They are also employed on RAAF bases and training units conducting training and operations in weapons, tactics, search and rescue and survival (to name a few core subjects).

There is also the not insignificant situation that ADGs undertake training and perform roles that cross “corps boundaries” that would upset the green machine, i.e performance of Close Protection duties after undertaking the course with RACMP.

An infantry soldier would require additional training to be able to perform ADG roles. These are skill sets and training that begin at the earliest stages of the ADG’s development, so it’s not like any old infantry sergeant could just slot in to any ADG sergeant’s job.

While an outward appearance of similarities between ADGs and infantry soldiers exist, the reality is somewhat different. I should know: I’ve completed a couple of courses at Infantry Centre, a four-month attachment to A Company 8/9RAR, Recon Course at Field Force Battle School, and training with the British and United States armies.

Further, either SGT Bishop is laying baits or he really is ignorant if he thinks life at an AFDS would be a “rest posting” from a battalion for a couple of years.

• Flight Sergeant S. J. Brasher
  SNCOIC GDTS
  RAAF CSU Wagga

THE letter from Sergeant Bishop typifies the view of many of our Army personnel, i.e. no idea of the specific roles of the Air Force.
I believe that if he had any exposure to the Canadian Defence Force he would realise that they are experiencing many flaws in their system.

While many musterings, corps or trades may appear similar, the application of the knowledge pertaining to each differs vastly. The “wider job and career opportunities” in the two musterings referred to are not necessarily those pursued by Air Force members. The few who are of this opinion have always had the ability to service transfer.

The letter implies that only Army personnel would like to pursue these “wider job and career opportunities”. This is particularly pertinent with the reference to “offer a rest posting for diggers” – this is the ultimate insult to our ADGs. While I’m sure many ADGs would consider a rest posting to a battalion, I’m certain that they understand their role (not infantry) in the wider ADF scheme and perform their job in a professional manner without the implied insult to their fellow servicemen.

Each of our services has their own identified roles and functions. While the cost-cutting measures mentioned in the letter may have been suggested with good intent, the reasoning given will only serve to foster the interservice dissension that has been slowly disappearing in recent times.

• Sergeant A. Godwin
  HQ1ATS
  RAAF Richmond

Badge policy a bugbear

The Infantry Combat Badge and Submariners Badge has been addressed time and time again with the chain of command, however I do not agree with the responses given.

The issue of awards from my interpretation is that you may apply to wear an award – once it has been approved – if the Air Force has an award that is similar, i.e. GSM (another service) pilot wings, parachuting badge to name a few.

These awards can be worn on almost all recognised uniforms other than the Air Force. My question is this: why can’t members wear what they were awarded and is the CDF and CAF aware of this narrow-minded policy?

As a recipient of the ICB I can march in uniform on Anzac Day proudly with the Air Force then to wear the ICB I must change into civilian attire.

If you want to turn one service against another then raise this over a beer and watch the sparks fly.
Many senior officers in the Defence Force thought that it could and should be worn. Who made this decision and why?

To some it may seem trivial, however we are continually selling the ADF as one, therefore allowing the members to wear these awards is a right step in the direction of a true ADF.

• Clint Drew
  27SQN
  RAAF Townsville

Reply to FLTLT Drew by DMAN-AF (Group Captain G.G. MacDonald):
The decision as to what embellishments are worn on military uniforms is the prerogative of each individual Service, with the resultant badges etc reflecting the role and traditions applicable in each case, e.g. Air Force flying brevets.

For those readers who are unaware of the Air Force policy on the wearing of badges awarded by another Service or country, the following extract from Chapter 5 of the Dress Manual sums up the situation:

“A member who has qualified for the award of a badge or other dress embellishment during previous service with the RAN, Army or other forces, before their appointment or enlistment in the RAAF, may be granted permission to wear the RAAF equivalent of the badge on their RAAF uniform. However, if no equivalent badge exists, then the original badge may not be worn. Both the Navy Submariners Badge and the Army’s Infantry Combat Badge fall into this category; accordingly, neither may be worn on the RAAF uniform.”

The Submariners Badge represents training and skills highly relevant to the Navy and the Infantry Combat Badge denotes service by Infantry personnel in an operational area. However, neither of these two areas of activity are connected with the core business of the Air Force, and therefore, there has never been a requirement for badges or brevets depicting these qualifications on Air Force uniforms. Hence there is no equivalent embellishment which may be worn. Equally, the use of other Service badges representing skills which are not central to the Air Force role is not appropriate. This policy has been affirmed by successive CAFs and noted by past Ministers for Defence and CDFs.

Navy and Army have similar guidelines and a number of Air Force brevets and badges have no equivalence in those Services and thus cannot be worn by members transferring from the Air Force.

Medal ‘overdue’
I READ with interest, the letter from FLTLT Stephen Trinka (Air Force News, August 29) regarding the need for a medal which recognises the service of the national volunteer enlistees, in line with that struck for the now highly and publicly acknowledged National Service conscripts.

During the Vietnam conflict many thousands of people like myself put up our hands and quietly signed over many years of our lives to the service of the government and the country. We were prepared and willing to do whatever was asked of us.

As history now shows, we tradesmen/women in the Air Force not directly attached to operational squadrons had little or no chance of demonstrating our skills in an international theatre, nor our preparedness to “stand on the line” and do what we thought we were signing up to do at the time (i.e. active service in Vietnam).

The contribution of the personnel who were asked to stay behind, was vital, when you remember the direct supporting role played by (inter alia) personnel in: Defence communications, intelligence, supply, maintenance, security and surveillance (particularly electronic), as well as operational planners and co-ordinators.

To use a sporting analogy: we weren’t needed on the field of play, but as reserves on the bench, trained and ready to go, we were still very much a part of the competing team and deserved recognition when the final whistle blew.

I think the time is overdue for the government to produce a medal that acknowledges publicly: “This person voluntarily served his country and stood prepared for active service during a time of international armed conflict or war.”

I am supportive of any effort to pursue, and correct, this long-standing anomaly in the medals and awards protocols, and I would enthusiastically encourage any serving member who has influence in this area to be proactive in this pursuit.

• Rick Smith
  Warrant Officer (ret’d)
  Caboolture, Queensland.

A dressing down for publishing photo

I would like to draw your attention to the picture on the front page of the August 15 issue of Air Force News.

I was surprised to see that you had allowed a picture of a senior NCO so poorly dressed and failing to comply with current instructions to be published – a continuing theme throughout your publication.

Failing to comply with the Air Force manual of dress in regards to dress and grooming instructions is bad enough (mixed dress, hair cut). However, the member is not wearing his ID card (mandatory in the current safe base alert state) and is not wearing hearing protection on the flight line (also mandatory).

This kind of photo paints a very poor picture. Also it is destructive to the morale, dress and bearing and professionalism of the Air Force in general.

As senior NCOs we are required to set and maintain a standard for our subordinates to follow. Your publication has weakened that position and placed the member in a difficult position.

This publication puts forward an image of the Air Force which is seen by the whole Defence force and civilian population. Frankly, it makes us look bad.

• Sergeant Mick Jordan
  36SQN
  RAAF Base Richmond

Editor’s reply:

The photograph relates to a story that appeared on Page 2 about an invitation to Sergeant John Prosser to undergo elite training in the United States with US Air Force security police.

The invitation came about because of SGT Prosser’s initiative in investigating measures to enable SECPOL to better secure aircraft and aircrew in operational areas.

The photograph was an eye-catching image that showed readers what SGT Prosser looks like and conveyed something of his resolve.

There might have been a minor lapse in compliance with Air Force regulations, but it’s outweighed by the positive image the photograph and story – taken together – present to members and civilians in highlighting an achievement that merits recognition and serves as an inspiration.

That said, Air Force News would be interested to know the views of other readers.

Everything old is new again

I read with interest the article in Air Force News (September 12) about the “new” SP armband, or brassard, that the Air Force service police are to wear.

As stated by Wing Commander Chris Osborn, Director of Security and Policing, “this was something we had 30 years ago”.
Try 40-plus years. Is that progress?

Another example of “progress” relates to the dreaded Headquarters Support Command, or SUPCOM, in Melbourne (to which I was posted unwillingly but grew to like in time thanks to a two-year posting to the US).

When I retired from the Air Force it was Headquarters Logistics Command (LOGCOM) but I understand it has reverted to Headquarters Support Command.

It appears that the various bean-counters and empire builders in Canberra have to reinvent elements of the Air Force every so often.

The mind boggles at the waste of manpower and costs these “new” initiatives incur.

PS: Are Air Force service police still known as “Spits” (I would like to think a play on the initials SP)?

• Adrian Heinrich
  Melbourne

.