Credibility
questions
Redefining categorisation of members is essential
for Members With Dependants (Separated) in de facto relationships,
argues Graham Howatt, of the Armed Forces Federation.
Nowhere
to stay on social Darwin visits | Where is
air power going?
 |
|
Does
Air Force newspaper lack credibility for printing some stories
that relate to all three Services?
|
|
Photo
by PTE John Wellfare
|
I
WISH to point out to editorial staff two examples of what I would
describe as being poor journalism contained in Air Force News,
dated May 5.
The first piece of what I consider to be poor journalism comes
from an article on page 11 (repeated on page 20), which describes
SGT Wayne Robinson as being an aviation technician. The correct
title of his mustering is avionics technician.
There is no mustering in the Air Force called aviation technician.
This mistake is quite serious as it demonstrates either a lack
of knowledge on the part of the reporter on musterings of the
Air Force, or indifference to the accuracy of his report.
The second example of poor journalism is the lack of recognition
that the official newspaper of the Air Force gave to Air Marshal
[Angus] Houston becoming the new CDF.
This is a matter of great pride to both the CAF and Service as
a whole, yet it receives just three paragraphs tucked away on
page seven.
Yet other less important stories, notably the Arafura games and
also Redress of Grievance procedures, are featured on pages two
and three. What is more galling is that the feature on computer
games also receives more space than AM Houston’s appointment.
As AM Houston is the first Air Force CDF (and first Air Force
officer to be head of the Defence Force since the early ’80s)
I would have thought this achievement would have been featured
either as a front-page item, or on the second page of Air Force
News.
I wonder whether the syndication and ever-increasing number of
common features shared between the three Defence newspapers is
impinging on the unique identity the Air Force News once had.
If that is the case, then it may be easier for editorial staff
to combine all three Service papers into one and call it Defence
News, as the present format of Air Force News sadly lacks credibility
as an Air Force newspaper.
FLTLT Alan Croft
RAAF Base East Sale
FLIGHT
Lieutenant Croft correctly points out the mistake we have made
with the mustering name. While we have Air Force, Army and ex-Navy
personnel on staff and the pages and stories are checked by Air
Force Headquarters, not all mistakes are picked up.
We make every effort to make information correct, as it goes through
several areas of Defence for clearance, but like anyone, we and
the people who check the pages are only human.
He also suggests the newspaper has not attached enough importance
to the story about CAF being appointed to CDF, due to its placement
on page 7.
All three Service newspapers sought to interview CAF for a lengthy
story, which, in the case of Air Force newspaper, would have featured
on page 1 or 3 (the two most important news pages), but he has
not been available for interviews to any media outlets, including
the Service newspapers. We do intend to run such a feature in
the near future.
There are many factors taken into account in newspaper story placement,
such as the length of the story, the availability and quality
of photos, how many people a story affects directly or indirectly,
how “new” the information is, how much space is available
on the page and what shape the news holes are after the ads are
placed.
The Service newspapers publish three common pages on entertainment,
recreation and health, as we recognise these areas as a part of
people’s lives.
However, their placement at the back of the paper – well
after the news pages, feature pages, and section pages such as
career and history – is appropriate for their importance,
regardless of whether one story fills up the page (as often is
the case with the health page).
The Service newspapers also publish common pages and occasionally
common stories because of resources. Like many workplaces, we
are always under pressure to produce the same amount with less
money and fewer people.
It is resource efficient to have one person write one story on
a matter affecting all ADF members for all three Service newspapers.
CAF takes great pride in the newspaper and personally wrote to
our senior editor just two weeks ago to indicate that he thought
the team was producing an excellent newspaper and displaying many
Air Force values.
Leesha Pitt
Acting editor
Air Force newspaper
Nowhere
to stay on social Darwin visits
IT HAS been pointed out to me that the only personnel who are
permitted to access “social” transit accommodation –
that is, not on exercise or temporary duty to Darwin – are
personnel posted to RAAF Base Tindal.
While it is understandable that Darwin is the closest major city
to personnel in Tindal, I find it baffling and also a little discriminatory
that other Defence members who wish to use and are willing to
pay for accommodation are unable to obtain it.
Upon investigating this further for a member, I was advised by
CSIG-NT that the approving authority for social transit accommodation
is commander 1 Brigade.
Due to the approving authority being such a high position, [is
it hoped] members will just disregard the idea of obtaining accommodation?
TPR T. Baldwin
5 Aviation Regiment
A member may be approved (by the local commanding
officer/officer commanding) to occupy living-in accommodation,
provided the accommodation is not required for members who are
required to live-in.
If a member is approved to access on-base accommodation for a
social visit, they would be required to make the normal contribution
according to the level of accommodation occupied. Requests to
use accommodation on base, while waiting for a connecting flight
to an international destination on recreation leave, would be
considered a social visit.
Requests for social accommodation at Robertson Barracks for a
member not attached to the barracks or visiting on official travel
would require approval being given by the base commander, prior
to any bookings being made. Priority is given to accommodation
requests for official purposes. That applies to members from RAAF
Base Tindal accessing accommodation on social visits to Darwin.
Stan Mitchell
Regional manager, NT/Katherine
CSIG
Where
is air power going?
 |
|
Will
there be any landmark developments when air power doctrine
is updated next year?
|
WGCDR
Glendan Krause suggests next year’s air power doctrine update
should get back to basics with a focus on defining the key terms.
THE
FIFTH edition of the Air Force doctrine is due to be published
next year. The first edition, published in 1990 at the direction
of Air Marshal Ray Furnell, was called the Air Power Manual (APM)
and since then has been revised on a regular four-year cycle.
The fourth edition, released in 2002, had both a new title –
Australian Aerospace Doctrine (AAD) – and a very contemporary
format. What can the writers add in this next version to make
any impact on our organisation? I suggest they should be re-examining
some of the basic elements.
The AAD suggests the “beginning of wisdom is calling things
by their right names”. Defining terms such as capability,
role, mission, task and sortie would be an important element in
setting out our doctrine.
A critical problem is that these terms are not clearly and unambiguously
defined.
For example, the AAD states “a role is a specific function”,
“missions are defined where a role can consist of a number
of discrete functions”, “a mission is a specific task”
and later states that “the missions ... are defined within
each role”.
This creates confusion about whether a mission is a subset of
a role, comprises a number of roles or is some entirely different
entity.
A key issue is the distinction between concepts and conduct, between
theory and practice. Both are important but doctrine should lean
a little to the side of conceptual thinking. Capabilities and
roles are concepts. They are key elements of doctrine as evidenced
by previous editions of APM.
Roles are also essential entities in the strategic dialogue on
preparedness planning and are used throughout the organisation,
appearing as part of the training programs and aircrew categorisation
schemes at wing and squadron level.
At the tactical level at least, roles are differentiated primarily
on the basis of specific equipment, weapon types, procedures and/or
training.
Missions and tasks are very much about the implementation and
employment of air power. They are about packaging capabilities
and roles through a combination of platforms, weapons and crew
competencies. Missions are how operations are conducted.
There have been a number of documents in recent Air Force history
that have attempted to set out a definitive list of air power
roles. These include the old AAP1010, the four editions of the
APM/AAD and the current Capability Management Plans.
In some areas, such as airlift, there is a relatively stable list,
but in other areas the roles have been expressed quite differently
depending on the personal preferences of the authors. Of further
concern is that some areas, such as combat support and battlespace
management, are still bound by very platform-specific terminology.
Here’s one example of a poorly expressed role and one that
is missing.
Airborne Early Warning and Control (AEW&C) is not an air power
role but rather a term for a platform and a mission type. It is
clearly several roles (functions) conducted concurrently. An AEW&C
platform is foremost a surveillance system.
Also most platforms would include significant early wanring intelligence
gathering functions. Perhaps the important aspect is the “control”
or force direction aspect that assists the offensive counter air
assets with target acquisition and engagement solutions. AEW&C
platforms also perform some first-line processing of battlespace
information, including data validation and fusion.
It is an unfortunate fact that none of the previous four editions
of doctrine have explicitly acknowledged the fighter control role
of the air defence category. There is no formal doctrinal basis
for the Air Force’s control and reporting units and the air
defence workforce (other than a liberal interpretation of the
surveillance role).
Force direction should be acknowledged as an important role for
aerospace power – both airborne force direction and direction
of airborne force. Early examples of force direction include use
of aircraft in World War I for artillery spotting, and specialist
units such as the Pathfinders in World War II, which provided
target designation for the high-altitude bombers.
Today, force direction includes fighter control (both ground-based
and airborne in AEW&C platforms), ground based laser target
designation and airborne buddy designation for other aircraft,
forward air control (both ground-based and airborne) as well as
strike direction and target passing from AP-3C to F-111 for maritime
strike.
What makes AEW&C such a potent force enhancement capability
is the combination of a good surveillance system with the force
direction function. We should correct the oversights of the past
and be clear about the true roles for aerospace power. Force direction
is a function that is distinguishable and occurs in a number of
forms.
So what should we be looking for in the current rewrite of our
doctrine publication? We do not need another format change (the
current format is very good). But we do need clear and comprehensive
articulation of air power roles.
These thoughts are personal observations and I hope they prompt
some debate. If you can see some areas for improving our formal
doctrine then send your comments to Wing Commander Bob Richardson
at the Air Power Development Centre, email robert.richardson4@defence.gov.au.
TOP
WGCDR
Glendan Krause has served as a navigator on C-130s, was involved
in establishing RAAFNET (now DRN), served in IT and strategic
policy posts, and is now the Assistant Air Attaché in Washington
DC.
