On the Record
On this page, we set the record straight to correct any inaccuracies in media reporting of Defence issues.
31 August 2010
Last week those of you in the West may have heard the interview Howard Sattler did with an ex digger named Mark on his Drive Program on Perth Radio Station 6PR. They were discussing the trialling of a pattern called DPMU for Australian soldiers. Army is trialling new uniforms because , like several other nations, including the UK and US it has been recognised that you can not be selective in which type of camouflage to wear when moving between desert and green zone is a necessity.
The safety of Australia soldiers serving in Australia and abroad is the highest priority for the Chief of Army.
The Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO) were tasked to come up with a camouflage uniform that had colours that were a combination of the two uniforms the Australian Army currently uses. We called it DPMU. This is in combination with other work being done to assess the other options for identifying the best camouflage for Australian soldiers, including a detailed look a the US and UK solutions. This is not a cost saving measure. And the IR performance of the uniforms and the colourfastness will be added at production time, if we go down the DPMU route. We already know how to do that as our DPCU has shown us, it does not wash out after 10 washes.
So that we make the best choice of mid point camouflage, when we have all the evidence, especially the scientific evidence, the Chief of Army will decide and we will go into production. This is so that soldiers can operate both in the green areas and the open desert without having to change their uniforms.
27 August 2010
12 February 2009 Incident In Afghanistan
On 12 February 2009, the Special Operations Task Group deployed to Afghanistan as part of Operation SLIPPER undertook a compound clearance operation in the Uruzgan Province.
The operation was the subject to an investigation by the Australian Defence Force Investigative Service, which has subsequently been referred to the Director of Military Prosecutions for consideration.
The Director of Military Prosecutions is the independent prosecutorial authority for the Australian Defence Force. The appointment is designed to operate outside of the chain of command in order to remove any suggestion of bias or command influence from the prosecution process.
On Monday 19 July 2010, the Chain of Command was invited to represent matters to be considered by the Director of Military Prosecutions that relate to the maintenance and enforcement of Service discipline.
The Director of Military Prosecutions is continuing her consideration on this matter and a final decision is yet to be determined regarding the potential of disciplinary action. The Department of Defence will announce the outcome of the investigation when the matter has been finalised.
26 August 2010
Transcript of: Chief of Defence Force, Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston speaks to Fran Kelly on Radio National Breakfast
09 August 2010
Investing in your mental health
Defence is making real progress on mental health reforms to improve services and assistance for all ADF members. While the ADF already has one of the largest workplace mental health structures in Australia, the 82.8 million dollar Mental Health Reform Program includes a range of measures to further increase the level of support available.
"Under the program we're increasing the mental health workforce by 50 percent over the next three years and enhancing the training programs for all ADF health professionals" said Major General Paul Alexander, Commander Joint Health Command.
More than 30 thousand people have deployed to the MEAO between the start of operations in 2003 and 30 June 2010. The latest figures show less than half of one percent of all personnel who deployed to the MEAO have discharged as a result of mental illness.
"We employ a multi-layered approach to mental health support for deployed personnel" said Major General Alexander.
"This includes psychological preparation prior to deployment; support from embedded health staff and fly-in specialist teams on operations; and post-deployment programs to help people reintegrate on their return to Australia."
In addition, BattleSMART (Self Management and Resilience Training) is now being delivered to all ADF recruits during training to enhance their capacity to deal with stressful events throughout their career.
Defence is currently conducting a number of studies, including MilHOP, to continue to develop mental health care strategies and support.
"The ADF is serious about removing any stigma surrounding mental health issues. Early diagnosis is the key to successful treatment and I encourage anyone who is concerned about their mental health to seek help as soon as possible" said Major General Alexander.
Confidential help is available 24 hours a day via the All Hours Support line on 1800 628 036.
Friday, 06 August 2010 Defence Responses to The Age - Vehicle Accidents in East Timor
1. Was the ISF/ADF involved in evacuating Adelino to Australia? If so where did he undergo treatment. Please provide details.
Response: Yes.The International Stabilisation Force (ISF) provided life saving medical treatment for Lorenso Madeira and Adelina Madeira. ISF arranged the evacuation of Adelino Madeira to Australia by Care Flight. Adelino Madeira was transported to Darwin hospital for further treatment.
2. What were the circumstances of the accident?
Response: The accident occurred on 22 May 2009 in the vicinity of Iliomar in the District Lautem.
East Timorese citizens, Adelino Madeira and his brother Lorenso Madeira were involved in the accident.
The ISF conducted an inquiry into the accident and the evidence was independently reviewed by forensic specialists in Australia. The inquiry concluded that Senor Madeira was driving on the wrong side of the road and despite evasive action being taken by both the ISF driver and Senor Madeira, a collision occurred.
At the scene of the accident an Australian Defence Force combat first aid qualified Officer, who was in the ISF vehicle, gave immediate medical treatment to all casualties.
An East Timorese ambulance transported the casualties to Baucau hospital.
Adelino Madeira underwent abdominal surgery at Baucau hospital whilst Lorenso was transferred to Dili Hospital for further treatment.
ADF medical personnel reviewed the Madeira brothers' condition in Dili hospital and Baucau hospital. Adelino's condition had worsened and the ADF arranged aeromedical transfer
to the ISF medical facility (ASPEN) for live saving treatment. He was subsequently transferred by Care Flight to Royal Darwin Hospital where he was treated from 7 June to 4 August 2009.
3. Adelino and Lorenzo Madeira have received only US$1,500 compensation each from the East Timor Government following their incapacitation as a result of the accident. Why hasn't the ISF/ADF provided compensation?
Response: The ADF paid all medical and transport expenses for the Madeira brothers.
There is a Status of Forces Arrangement between the Government of East Timor and the Government of Australia which outlines the arrangements for compensation for damage of property or injury resulting from incidents involving the ISF. This Arrangement provides that the Government of East Timor is to deal with and meet any claim for compensation in accordance with its national law, regulations and policies. Accordingly, the Government of East Timor is responsible for compensating the Madeira brothers.
4. Has the ISF/ADF apologised to the men and their families and provided to them a formal report on what happened?
Response: The ISF conducted an inquiry into the accident and the evidence was independently reviewed by forensic specialists in Australia. The inquiry concluded that Senor Madeira was driving on the wrong side of the road and despite evasive action being taken by both the ISF driver and Senor Madeira, a collision occurred.
Expenses incurred by the family during the period of the treatment were met by the ISF. The ISF was in communication with the family during the period of the treatment.
The ISF paid close and continued attention to the Madeira brothers' welfare to ensure they were provided an appropriate level of treatment.
The ISF regrets that this accident occurred.
5. Will the ISF/ADF undertake to review the current circumstances of the victims?
Response: There is currently no evidence to support a further review by the ISF.
The ADF takes all reasonable steps to educate its drivers about the challenges of driving in unfamiliar environments to ensure their safety and the safety of others.
6. How many other unreported accidents where serious injuries were incurred have there been that involved ISF/ADF vehicles and Timorese civilians?
Response: Since 2008, the ADF has been involved in nine vehicle accidents that resulted in injuries to East Timor nationals, four of which were classified as minor injuries.
7. Why was this accident not announced in a press release as per other accidents?
Response: All incidents are reported to the Chain of Command.
In all cases, priority is placed on the provision of medical assistance to the injured.
Thursday, 05 August 2010
Dear Editor,
An article published in the Courier Mail by Lisa Carne on 4th August 2010 - Aussies Facing Taliban Surge - is grossly inaccurate.
Your article implies that Australian troops have just arrived in Uruzgan province to replace the Dutch Forces, referring to Australian forces as "new arrivals.” This is not the case.
Australian troops have operated in Uruzgan since 2006 in partnership with Dutch forces. Dutch troops will be replaced by US forces and together with troops from Australia, Singapore, Slovakia and New Zealand will form the Combined Team - Uruzgan.
The nature of Australia's Operations in Afghanistan and the number of Australian Defence Force troops deployed to Afghanistan has not changed as a result of the Dutch withdrawal.
I'd request that you correct the record with regard to this matter.
D.J. HURLEY, AC, DSC
Lieutenant General
Acting Chief of the Defence Force
Wednesday, 04 August 2010
30 December 2008 Incident
The Australian Defence Force has reviewed records and the management of information in relation to the Mentoring and Reconstruction Task Forces’ involvement in a shooting incident in Afghanistan on 30 December 2008 in which an Afghan national was killed.
Contrary to advice provided to Fairfax’s Dan Oakes on 27 July 2010, handover documents between the Chief of the Defence Force and the Vice Chief of the Defence Force on 5 January 2009 and 13 January 2009 contained references to the deceased man's occupation.
These handovers coincided with the death of Private Gregory Sher and an important overseas visit by CDF to Iraq, Afghanistan and Indonesia.
CDF revisited this issue four months later in May 2009 when he announced the findings of the Inquiry into the 30 December 2008 incident.
At this time, CDF’s emphasis was on the outcome of the inquiry concerning the conduct of ADF troops, not on revisiting the incident itself. Furthermore, the briefing material provided to CDF at that time contained no mention of the fact that the man killed was later confirmed as a member of the Afghan National Police.
At no time has CDF or the ADF deliberately taken action to cover up the fact that the Afghan national killed on 30 December 2008 was an off duty Afghan National policeman.
The CDF is committed to openness and transparency in reporting civilian casualties.
In July 2009, CDF announced new ADF procedures designed to improve public release processes regarding alleged or actual civilian casualty incidents. He did this because he was determined to ensure that robust and consistent processes were in place into the future.
CDF is prepared to stand on his record.
Monday, 12 July 2010
Recently, The Australian newspaper published a series of articles arising from the Middle East Area of Operations Preliminary Study.
The Preliminary Study and Military Health Outcomes Program (MilHOP) survey form part of a broader Defence commitment to improve health care, particularly mental health care, for ADF members.
Defence provided the following responses to the journalist's initial inquiry.
Background
- The Annexes form part of the Preliminary Study for the Military Health Outcomes Program (MilHOP) survey. These annexes were inadvertently posted to the Centre for Military and Veterans Health (CMVH) web site.
- The responses are the participants’ personal perceptions. In some instances these perceptions do not necessarily reflect the full context of the issues raised.
- Participants who were interviewed as part of the Preliminary Study have been deployed in the Middle East Area of Operations at some time during the period 1991 - present.
- The questions in the Preliminary Study were deliberately designed to illicit responses that described veterans’ most difficult or challenging deployment experiences.
- These Preliminary Study responses were used to shape the MilHOP survey.
- The Preliminary Study and MilHOP survey form part of a broader Defence commitment to improve health care, particularly mental health care, for ADF members and remove the stigma associated with mental health issues.
- Understanding the stressors that affect deployed ADF personnel is critical to enabling the development of strategies to care for our people.
- A significant factor in achieving this important objective is to gain the confidence and trust of our members to speak openly about issues affecting them.
- Defence has already investigated and/or resolved many of the issues raised by the respondents over the 19 year period considered by the Preliminary Study.
- Sensationalising these issues in the media has the potential to undermine our attempts to care for our veterans, both serving and non-serving, some of whom may be dealing with mental health issues. Eroding this confidence and trust may prevent individuals from coming forward in the future.
- Our primary concern is for the health and wellbeing of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and airwomen.
Friday, 23 April 2010
Facts on Reserves and Strategic Reform Program (SRP) [PDF- 20.4 KB]
Tuesday, 13 April 2010
Letter to the Editor regarding article by Nicholas Stuart
Nicholas Stuart’s article “Reserves pushed to the outer” is grossly inaccurate. Reserves are at the heart of Australian Defence Force operational capability, more so now than for decades. Within the 2nd Division – predominantly comprised of Reservists who represent around two thirds of the Army Reserve – our contribution to ADF operations is five times what it was just five years ago. We are an essential part in an integrated “whole of ADF” effect.
Our contribution takes many forms in almost every operational theatre where Australians serve currently. This ranges from deploying significant teams commanded by Reservists into operational theatres, to individual Reservists deploying as an integral member of a force. Our service to the nation is also at home, such as in the immediate response to the tragic 2009 bushfires in Victoria, where hundreds of part time and full time servicemen integrated into a Joint Task Force based on the 4th Brigade, which is a Reserve formation commanded by an Army Reserve officer. That Joint Task Force did extraordinary work in the most trying of circumstances.
Reservists prepare for operations under the same rigorous process that applies to all Army forces, and we are certified ready for operations in the same manner as for any other Australian soldier. What Reservists do at home and abroad is relevant, contemporary and highly valued by the ADF and the wider community.
Reservists are rightly proud of their contribution to the ADF, and morale is higher than it has been for decades. Recruiting is strong and our trained soldiers are being retained in Reserve service, such that years of decline have been arrested and reversed. The 2nd Division has grown significantly in strength by retaining Reserve soldiers who want to continue to serve their country. Morale cannot be taken for granted and must be nurtured, and our soldiers valued and respected, as they most certainly are.
The future of the Army Reserve is bright and we are at the heart of ADF capability. Army Reservists, their families, their employers and the ADF are all rightly proud of their service. I have confidence that the Australian community will not be disappointed with what the facts, rather than tired assertions, say for the state of our Army Reserve, our service now and what it will be in the future.
Major General Craig Williams, AM
Commander 2nd Division
07 April, 2010
Journalist tries to cook up mischief
I want to highlight errors and misrepresentation in articles written by journalist Ian McPhedran regarding Navy chefs, namely Mutiny on navy food (Daily Telegraph 7 April 2010) and Bean counters put navy in a stew (Adelaide Advertiser 3 April 2010).
The article in the Adelaide Advertiser can be found here:
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/national/bean-counters-put-navy-in-a-stew/story-e6frea8c-1225849050284
In mid-March, Mr McPhedran contacted Navy with a couple of questions. Navy was happy to oblige and here is the material provided to him:
HMAS NEWCASTLE is conducting a revalidation of the recommended scales of issue of victuals that contribute to the formulation of a ships menu.
What is the reason for this trial?
The revalidation is simply taking a fresh look at current Navy practice. It seeks to confirm and demonstrate the impact that variations in the scale of issues has on the overall endurance of ships. Any increase in the quantity/size of victuals ordered by ships above that authorised within ADF policy has a flow on effect to the ship’s endurance, that is, the maximum period of time a ship can remain at sea without needing to conduct provision replenishment.
Is the aim to cut costs?
No. Ships are allocated a per person per day budget with which to purchase food. Regular adjustments are made to this budget to take into account price increases. Whilst the costs associated with feeding a Ship’s Company are regulated, Navy recognises the importance of providing our personnel serving at sea with quality food. This validation will provide evidence of the adequacy of the current food budget and will inform any future budget increases.
Is the Navy concerned about the possible loss of cooks if the menu is standardised across the fleet?
There is no intent to standardise the menu across the Fleet. Cooks at sea, as individuals and as part of the Catering Team, will still be able to hone the skills they have been taught, both in the classroom and on the job, and will continue to have ample opportunity to demonstrate flair and innovation in the formulation of menus and cooking of meals for their shipmates.
Is the trial modelled on the US Navy menu system?
No, the trial is not modelled on the US Navy menu system and there is no intention of adopting USN principles for feeding RAN personnel.
It is disappointing that the published articles do not accurately reflect the truth of the matter or the material provided to Mr McPhedran.
Trevor Jones
Rear Admiral
Head Navy People and Reputation
18 March, 2010
Cost-consciousness in Defence
Over the last week the Sydney Morning Herald has published a series of articles that have questioned the legitimacy and appropriateness of a number of Defence contracts and other expenditures. It also painted a picture of Defence being a profligate organisation.
By way of background, on 27 February 2010, a Sydney Morning Herald journalist made an initial inquiry to Defence seeking answers to 55 questions that addressed contracts and expenditure across all Groups and Services going back several years. Many of the issues raised were wide-ranging and required detailed answers. Defence has provided responses to all of the questions put by the journalist, which can be viewed on the Defence Home Page.
While we are satisfied that, with relatively few exceptions, the expenditures covered by the Sydney Morning Herald’s questions are both legitimate and reasonable, a number of the matters raised reflect unfavourably on particular decisions taken by delegates, and affect Defence’s reputation more broadly.
We believe that Defence has a real opportunity to learn lessons from this exercise and to emerge as a stronger organisation as a result. And we will do so. To do so we need to do more to instil a culture of greater cost-consciousness across Defence. And we need to do more to assure the robustness of our spending and procurement processes.
The Government will soon consider the implementation plan for the Strategic Reform Program (SRP). The plan has been under development since May 2009 and will provide a very detailed blue-print for deep reform in Defence, including the delivery of $20 billion in savings over the next decade which will be reinvested in Defence capability that is essential to deliver Force 2030. We expect to be in a position in the near future where we can brief all Defence staff in detail about the SRP.
At the heart of the SRP is the imperative for all of us in Defence to conduct our business more effectively and more efficiently. This starts with decisions that individuals take each day, including on the expenditure of Australian taxpayers funds provided as part of the Defence budget. The Minister for Defence, Senator Faulkner, has been very clear about the need for Defence to use its resources more efficiently, effectively and most importantly, intelligently. A culture of discipline and cost-consciousness must underpin our everyday operations and decision-making. This is integral to responding to criticisms of our spending decisions. It will also be integral to the success of the SRP.
We ask all managers, commanders and those exercising delegations to approach their business with these imperatives of discipline and cost-consciousness in mind. We must all recognise and take seriously our accountability for the effective and efficient use of Defence resources. Before we commit to expend funds we should ask ourselves some simple questions. Is this necessary? Is it value for money? Can we do better? Is it publicly defensible? We ask delegates and managers to pay particular attention to justifying and documenting their decisions. Moreover, if your procurement decision will be lodged on the AusTender database make sure that the description of the goods or services is complete and clear, ensure that the figures are accurate, and ensure that you maintain comprehensive and easily accessible records that can be made available for future review if required.
As a final comment, most of the areas of expenditure that have been covered by the Sydney Morning Herald articles will be the subject of further scrutiny as part of the SRP. Any not covered will now be subject to scrutiny in other ways. While uncomfortable in parts, the Sydney Morning Herald articles are a timely reminder for us all of the need to reflect carefully on the decisions we take in our day to day activities as we work to reform Defence. We have no doubt that we will all learn from our recent experience. We will provide further guidance as we move into the implementation phase of the SRP.
The Minister for Defence strongly supports the publication of all the responses as another way of enhancing transparency and accountability and encouraging greater cost-consciousness in Defence. So do we.
IJ Watt 18 Mar 10 |
AG Houston 18 Mar 10 |
09 March, 2010
Letter to the Editor – Bundaberg News Mail
Dear Editor,
I appreciated the paper covering the success of your local cadets at the Chief of Army Cadet Team Challenge in the piece entitled “Bundy’s gold medal army cadets” published on 9 March 2010. However I write to correct a couple of inaccuracies in the article for the benefit of your readers.
The Australian Army Cadets is a leading national youth development organisation, with the character and values of the Australian Army, founded on a strong community partnership, fostering and supporting an ongoing interest in the Australian Army. Clearly because the military structure of Army Cadets and although many of the scenarios and activities that the cadets undertook such as navigation, quick decision exercises, first aid, engineering, obstacle course, drill and shooting are conducted in a military context it must be clear that cadets were not placed in “real-life war predicaments”. Rather the competition is designed as a set of activities that are physically and mentally demanding, set in an appropriately risk managed environment. The activity stresses the values of teamwork, initiative and moral courage and for that reason you can be justifiably proud of the cadets that formed the team representing South Queensland.
As noted in your article Captain Dent said her cadets had displayed leadership and teamwork skills that would hold them in good stead later in life. I could not agree more with that assessment and it underscores the aim and value of the Australian Army Cadets as a youth development organisation.
Brigadier John Withers
Commander
Australian Army Cadets
04 March, 2010
Letter to the Editor – Daily Telegraph, Courier Mail
Dear Editor,
The article “Chopper’s near-miss” written by Ian McPhedran and published on 3 March 2010 is erroneous and therefore misleading. I write to correct the record on this matter for the benefit of your readers.
The article states that the “pilot fought for control”. This was never the case. The aircraft remained fully controllable throughout the incident and the pilot was always in full control.
The claim that the pilot reported a “MAYDAY” is untrue. The crew declared a “PAN”, which indicates a request for priority handling, not an emergency. The event was conducted as a precautionary landing. HMAS Warramunga’s crew were already at their usualFlying Stations but no “Crash on Deck” was ever declared.
There was no “bucking deck”. The ship motion at the time of the incident was benign.
This was a serious incident and is being treated as such. Navy’s Fleet Air Arm sees safety as its number one priority and continues to maintain this focus.
In response to the incident, all Navy Seahawk helicopter flying operations were suspended while the cause of the “PAN” incident was investigated. This response was consistent with Navy’s standard operating procedures and strong “safety first” approach.
Vice Admiral Russ Crane
Chief of Navy
27 February, 2010
Letter to the Editor – The Australian
The article on Air Force’s air combat aircraft by Cameron Stewart in ‘The Australian’ (Saturday 27 February) is not an accurate reflection of Air Force’s current capability and readiness.
Air Force maintains a potent air combat capability, which will be further boosted within weeks, when the first of RAAF’s next-generation Super Hornets will arrive in Australia.
For obvious reasons Defence does not publicly release availability numbers of air combat aircraft. However, Cameron Stewart’s article may be referring to the period of operational standby over Christmas, when Air Force maintains its normal level of high readiness for short notice tasks, while many of our people including maintainers are taking well earned leave with their families.
The newspaper story made only passing reference to the much publicised Hornet Upgrade (HUG) project. This project is successfully delivering state of the art fighter aircraft which will be ready to operate effectively in the threat environment of the next decade. F/A-18s involved in the upgrade are off-line for a period of time, but this is a staged process to ensure Air Force always maintains sufficient capability to fulfil Government tasking and crew training.
The F-111s are ageing aircraft which have served Australia well, but are now approaching the end of their operational life. Air Force is retiring its F-111s at the end of 2010 and is acquiring a fleet of 24 Super Hornets as an interim replacement for the F-111, before the cutting edge F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is delivered to Australia.
Air Force is experiencing some challenges with the ageing F-111s. Again, it is widely acknowledged that the F-111 is increasingly expensive and difficult to maintain and operate. Despite this, a few uninformed commentators continue to call for F-111 operations to be extended beyond 2010.
The arrival of the first group of Super Hornets next month marks a new chapter for Air Force and a major leap in air combat capability. The Super Hornet is a true multi-role aircraft that, when flown and supported by the high calibre people within Air Force, will ensure Australia’s regional air combat capability edge through to the introduction of the F-35.
Air Marshal Mark Binskin
Chief of Air Force
22 February, 2010
Letter to the Editor – The Australian
Regarding Cameron Stewart’s story on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (published Friday 19 February), Cameron appears to confuse two key issues: the F-35’s schedule and the aircraft’s end-state capability.
In capability terms, Australia’s requirement is for a cutting edge 5th generation aircraft that provides both fighter and strike roles. Australia’s decision to acquire the F-35 was based on very detailed and sustained analysis. In fact there is no other multi-role 5th generation aircraft that meets our needs. I remain confident that the F-35 will provide the air combat capability that Australia needs for the future.
In schedule terms, we continue to acknowledge the challenges the F-35 team is facing. As you would expect, I continue to monitor the progress of the F-35 extremely closely. Importantly for me, Australia has a staged F-35 acquisition strategy that includes significant cost and schedule buffers. With regard to schedule buffer, Australia’s first two JSF aircraft are expected to be built in the 6th year of production. In regards to aircraft cost, Australian Defence planning has always adopted a cautious approach to F-35 cost estimates, factoring in significant amounts of contingency funds to deal with cost risks. The staged acquisition approach for the JSF allows Defence to adjust funding provisions in the Defence Capability Plan for the bulk of our JSF acquisition as cost information matures.
As Minister Faulkner noted earlier this month, we acknowledge the F-35 schedule will continue to face risks. These issues have also been clearly flagged by US Secretary of Defense Gates. However, Secretary Gates has stated that he believes F-35 is “on track to become the backbone of US air superiority for the next generation.” I believe this will hold true for the Royal Australian Air Force.
Air Marshal Mark Binskin
Chief of Air Force
19 January, 2010
Editor - News Ltd
In your article in News Ltd papers this morning titled, 'We're an easy sub target', you stated that 'Air force skills have also been hit because it cannot fly its AP3-C Orion anti-submarine warfare (ASW) planes against "live" targets.' This is incorrect.
Air Force has a requirement to generate levels of capability readiness across a number of roles including Anti Submarine Warfare. There has been no change in the level of Anti Submarine Warfare skills required by Government and the ADF.
Orion crews continue to maintain Anti Submarine Warfare capability, while maintaining their operational commitments to Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance tasks in the Middle East and northern Australia.
Air Force AP-3C Orions represent one element of the ADF’s Anti Submarine Warfare capability. Navy also has significant surface and airborne Anti Submarine Warfare capabilities.
Air Force conducts regular Anti Submarine Warfare exercises with the Navy, and foreign forces. The details of these exercises are often not made public for operational security reasons. Some public examples of Air Force Anti Submarine Warfare exercises include Exercise RIMPAC and the Fincastle series of activities.
AP-3C Orions are highly capable and versatile aircraft capable of overland and maritime ISR, anti submarine warfare operations, and search and rescue activities.
Air Force plans its crew training to ensure skills are maintained in all these types of tasking.
For operational security reasons we will not provide further detail on Air Force’s Anti Submarine Warfare capabilities.
Regards
Brigadier Brian Dawson
Director General Public Affairs
Department of Defence
03 January 2010
Chief of Navy sets the record straight over allegations by Weekend Australian on state of Armidale Patrol Boat Fleet
I write in regard to an article in today’s Australian Newspaper (“gas risk remains for Navy boats”) by Michael McKenna. The article is based on a quote from an anonymous sailor, that a member was gassed on board an Armidale Class Patrol Boat in 2009 in an incident similar to a tragedy which injured four crew members 3 years earlier. I have asked Navy’s Patrol Boat Group Headquarters to thoroughly check their files. There is no record of this occurring.
For those who have not been aboard an Armidale, the austere accommodation compartment is designed to house any unexpected overflow of people. When not in use, the space is rarely used and usually sealed off. Therefore, the area is constantly monitored for any trace of toxic gas. Alarms sound at the slightest hint that levels of gas have risen to potentially dangerous levels, even if the amount of gas detected is below the amount toxic to humans. Those alarms have detected carbon monoxide emissions 8 times in the past 12 months and on each occasion the space was empty and no one was injured. No Hydrogen Sulphide (the gas involved in the tragedy in Nuship Maitland in 2006) has been detected. The recent introduction of better exhaust systems is significantly reducing the amount of carbon monoxide being ingested into the boats’ ventilation systems. Their sewage treatment systems are also being modified. Those improvements will continue across our patrol boat fleet.
The most recent incident involving Hydrogen Sulphide occurred in 2008. A small number of people at the HMAS Coonawarra Navy base in Darwin were slightly affected when the gas escaped from a sewage treatment plant as a patrol boat was undocking. This was the result of operator error and had nothing to do with the austere accommodation or the Armidales themselves.
Navy has never hidden the fact that like any new asset, the Armidales had some teething problems. But I can only repeat that the Armidale Class Patrol Boats are a safe, capable and reliable asset. I visited several of our 14 strong fleet just weeks ago and came away impressed with not only their capability but the ability and professionalism of those who crew them.
If Navy personnel of any rank still have concerns about the Armidales, I urge them to communicate this through their chain of command. New Generation Navy Signature Behaviours must apply and I will not tolerate measures or procedures which place our people in unnecessary danger.
However, the facts speak for themselves. I hope that any future reporting of this issue will focus more on the truth and less on hear-say.
Vice Admiral RUSS CRANE
Chief of Navy
Review Letters to the Editor for 2009
Review Letters to the Editor for 2008
Review Letters to the Editor for 2007