Defence Update

(Defence Minister Mr Kim Beazley announced last December the restructuring of GAF as a Commonwealth-owned company, but now free to run its own affairs and not tied to a Government department. Sir Brian Inglis, former Chairman of the Ford Motor Company of Australia, is chairman of the new company which has been named Aerospace Technologies of Australia – refer Newsdesk for more information. )

By the end of 1986, the RAAF had 20 F-18s, two of which came direct from the McDonnell Douglas St. Louis factory and the remainder from GAF. In January and February, it was expected that a further four would be available to the RAAF at the Williamtown air base, north of Newcastle, where No. 2 Operational Conversion Unit (2OCU) and No. 3 Squadron has been reformed.

No. 77 Squadron, also at Williamtown, officially phases out of its Mirage fighters on June 30, reforming then with Hornets. A new team will include the CO, Wing Commander John Kindler. He has served recently with the Directorate of Air Force Safety and is now undergoing the F-18 conversion course.

Through four full conversion courses, an abbreviated trial one which began in August 1985, plus nine RAAF officers who trained in the US, our Air Force had 22 pilots trained on Hornets by the end of 1986.

However, three (including a test pilot) have been lost due to resignations to pursue civil flying with the airlines. To cope with such wastage rates, the RAAF is increasing its flying training rates and the surge capacity provided by the Hornet computer-based training systems will be important in this regard.

While disappointed that GAF fell short of its target by two aeroplanes last year, the Director of the Tactical Fighter Force (TFF) Project, Group Captain Bruce Searle, in an interview in the company of the Chief of Air Force Materiel, Air Vice-Marshal Alan Heggen, said special efforts were underway from early this year in a bid to catch up on the schedules. “We’re hoping to overcome the backlog fairly quickly,” he said. “. . . GAF has been delivering the aircraft more or less on time. They were close to delivering those two aircraft to achieve an important objective, but they just missed making it. ”

He acknowledged there were some problems at GAF. Last year the difficulties included delays in the supply of parts from the US. This problem was shared with the US production line on a pro rata basis and now has been overcome.

A second problem, which also had been overcome, concerned the particular techniques of fitting certain components. Experience on the production line has often turned out to be just as important as the assembly instructions. Uncertainties over just where GAF was heading also contributed to the difficulties.

On the positive side, given the difficulties, it was a credit to all those involved that the delivery of Hornets has been so close to schedule, Searle said.

Unlike large production lines, the F-18 was being assembled at GAF with much smaller numbers of key people on the line. The completion of work packages was dependent on quality assurance and passing certain test procedures. This sometimes produced ‘choke points’. However, to keep the line moving, work teams were employed in areas as required to complete other work packages which could slow down future deliveries. Searle said that probably the biggest problem at present resulted from the need to define ATA’s organizational structure.

Previous uncertainties over GAF’s future had impacted on recruiting as personnel generally wanted to know what might happen if, as planned, the F-18 programme finished about 1990. On top of this, with an expansion of business, the commercial airlines had been offering higher wage rates which had meant there was competition for qualified people. The procedures of employment at GAF also included public service processes which produced delays. AVM Heggen said the new structure should lead to a streamlining of these procedures and more competitive employment conditions. (We believe details eventually will emerge which will aim to make Aerospace Technologies highly competitive within Australia and with a special emphasis on gaining export orders. )

In basic terms, GAF is now producing 1 ½ Hornets a month. This peak of eighteen aircraft a year applies for this year and next year, after which production will slow down. The overall rate allows for fifteen aircraft (including one dual-seat trainer) to reequip a fighter squadron in a year.

This year the production schedule, apart from seeking to pick up the two Hornets not achieved last year, calls for eleven single-seat F-18s and seven trainers. Next year, the plan provides for fourteen singles and four duals.

No. 75 Squadron, which transferred from Butterworth air base near Penang, Malaysia, in mid-1983 to Darwin, will start reequipping at Williamtown in May 1988. The nucleus of that squadron will reform at Williamtown and go to the newly developed air base at Tindal, 200km south of Darwin, in the last quarter of 1988.

The Tindal base facilities to accommodate the squadron will be activated then and permanent RAAF fighter operations from Darwin will cease before the end of that year. A new runway at Tindal is near completion and work on various other facilities is well advanced.

When No. 75 Squadron withdrew from Butterworth, it was replaced by a temporary re-activated squadron – No. 79 – with twelve Mirages. Under Australia’s commitment to IADS (Integrated Air Defence System), F-18s are scheduled to undertake rotational duty at Butterworth sometime next year. This will mean disbanding No. 79 Squadron, details of which are still being worked out.

Meanwhile, the fifth F-18 conversion course at Williamtown which ended in February 1987 was also the first course to graduate ab initio fighter pilots. Or as Group Captain Searle explains: “In other words, they’ve come either straight from the flying training school, or other areas like helicopters or transports. They’ve done the introductory fighter course on Macchi jet trainers and then moved straight to Hornets. They’ll be the first Hornet fighter pilots to graduate without having any Mirage experience. The course went very well. ”

Of the 28 qualified Hornet pilots in the RAAF, 22 have been trained in Australia using the new computer-based training systems. In addition 460 of some 600 maintenance personnel have been trained using the same type of systems at Williamtown, which this year has a new OC, Air Commodore Dennis Robertson.

Searle said the advanced training systems delivered so far as part of the F-18 project package had worked “just as we had expected” in spite of some timetable slippages. The systems birig procured are the Operational Flight Trainer (OFT), the Simulated Aircraft Maintenance Training Systems (SAMTs) and the HOTASTA (Hands On Throttle and Stick Training Aid). A second OFT will be installed at Tindal.

The new concepts incorporated to satisfy RAAF specifications in these computer-based training aids have made them so effective and economical to operate that they have attracted considerable interest from businesses. Other Air Forces in the western world are also interested in this advance in training technology.

Already this has led to a cooperaUve agreement with Canada (who also flies F-18s), which Searle said was very beneficial. Further, it has extended into cooperation on other procurements such as mission equipment and larger capacity composite drop tanks (refer to Hornet Update, this issue). These tanks carry 480 gallons as against 300 gallons in the standard ones. “We’ll be working in a collaborative manner with Canada when they flight test these tanks before procurement”, Searle said. It will give a significant improvement in the un-tefuelled ferry range of F-18s and also in the radius of action in all roles, but it is not a substitute for the in-flight refuelling capability currently being sought through the proposed conversion of the RAAF’s four Boeing 707 means of transport. What they would do in a contingency is improve the force multiplier effect of our limited tanking assets.

Other areas of cooperation with Canada involve structural matters and R&D. Also, senior Spanish Air Force officers are due to visit Australia soon to discuss possible collaboration and information exchanges which could be of advantage to both countries. (The Spanish Air Force has ordered 72 F-18s with an option for a further 12 aircraft of which 11 had been delivered by the end of 1986. )

The Canadian and Spanish Air Forces have procured the avionics fault tree analyzer units (AFTAs) used for support of the RAAF F-18s ahd manufactured by British Aerospace Australia in South Australia. The US Navy are also believed to be interested in procuring a substantial number of AFTAs for their Hornets. As for the recommendation by Ministerial Consultant, Mr Paul Dibb, that the RAAF could be well suited to acquire another 20-25 Hornets for maritime strike roles in 1990, the Air Force is not holding its breath. The Dibb concept appeared to be based on the evolution of an Advanced F-18 by McDonnell Douglas, but there has been no tangible sign so far of any breakthrough in that possible development.

Mini News Desk…

Defence Resignations Creating Significant Service Problems:

The continuing resignation rate amongst experienced Service personnel, particularly . RAAF aircrew, is causing concern at Defence Central.

What is most alarming is that the RAAF has lost a significant number of highly trained specialist aircrew these past few years with it necessarily being able to replace their expertise in the time available. The LAMP Orion squadrons have always been manpower critical though this has in the past year been eased somewhat by a change in aircrew status allowing for a greater availability of electronic systems crew. While most units are generally understaffed, the most critical emerging area is ironically that of the elite fighter squadrons.

Even the arrival of the F-18 Horriet has not stopped the drain with already four (and several more to depart by mid year) F-18 pilots having resigned _in favour of the airlines. The situation is now critical as the ratio of aircrew to aircraft begins to settle at 1:1 instead of a more normal 2:1 that would have to be. Available in the event of hostilities. You don’t have to be a military historian to know that in every war the availability of highly trained aircrew has always been more important than mere aircraft numbers ranging from the Battle of Britain through to the most recent conflicts in the Middle East and the South Atlantic.

To stem the tide, Defence is evaluating a wide range of options, some of which would not have been dared for consideration just a few short years ago. This alone at least is a belated recognition that a manpower crisis does exist and at last the politicians and senior brass are now willing to address it. And so they should. It is estimated that to bring one three year flight lieutenant to operational status costs between $2m and $7m depending upon which unit he will graduate to. With a wash-out rate in the order of 50% for general flying training the young pilot who finally graduates from an OCU course has to carry more than his own cost of training on his shoulders, hence the overall high cost of military training.

The cause of the accelerating loss rate, now running at more than 10% per annum for officers and 13% overall, is generally the relatively poor conditions of service. While the forces do offer numerous benefits the most widely charged problems are simply that too many people are sick of perennially being transferred (often for rather oblique reasons), of receiving pay at a scale far less than they could achieve in the civilian world and the problems of morale of serving through a long, albeit thankful, period of peace. It is during these times that the services are often placed on the political back burner, something that has been all too evident in recent years in terms of pay and conditions. In fairness though to Defence; and their more than able Minister, Mr Kim Beazley. The department has been wrought with financial problems through the decline of the Australian dollar and the need to introduce a number of expensive new hardware programmes simultaneously.

To address the problem Defence is evaluating a number of options that were to be officially debated upon as we closed for press. The most obvious was a simple re-enlistment bonus for specialist trades, such as aircrew and electronics tradesmen, etc. This is used in the US and elsewhere successfully and could allay your average 30 year old Hercules pilot from rushing off to join Qantas, Ansell, Australia or Cathay Pacific. More radical was the suggestion that we adopt the Swiss system which works so well. The majority of Swissair pilots, for instance, also operate part-time with the Swiss Air Force (refer p15 Mar 84 AA) for a total of several months annually. This of course makes for very experienced airline pilots in addition to enabling tiny Switzerland to boast one of the largest and most efficient operational air arms on aper capita basis in the world. In this scenario, RAAF pilots would be able to cross-qualify with our Australian carriers thereby gaining access to the seniority listings at an early age. The only major restriction would be that they would not be able to become Captains.

Another move under investigation is bringing back flying status for reservists. During the fifties, this worked quite well with many Mustang and Meteor units comprising reservists. Nowadays it should work just as well with ex-RAAF pilots being able to continue flying the aircraft types they are rated on for a portion of the year. “If this had been introduced five or Six years ago,” commented one senior Defence spokesmen, “then we wouldn’t have a problem today.”

It is noteworthy that this scheme works particularly well in the USA where both the US Air Force Reserve and the State-operated and funded Air National Guard both enjoy reputations for professionalism second to none. Considering that the typical ANG or Reserve pilot also flies five days a week up front in an airliner also makes him generally more ‘in the groove’ to his flying than often would otherwise be the case. In this way the USN and USAF don’t entirely lose the skills (and not inconsiderable investment) that they have nurtured in their aircrew. Why can’t Australia do likewise?