Download - Royal Australian Navy

is the adf too stove-piped to effectively undertake expeditionary operations?
147
An MRH-90 approaches the forward flight deck of HMAS Manoora (II) (Defence)
Another sign of a budding joint approach is the ‘single Service equipment management
process’ now operated by the ADF. Air Force, for example, is responsible for technical
regulation of all ADF aircraft. This ranges from technical management of aircraft
maintenance and modification processes to the training authority for all aviation
technicians. This process has a number of key benefits including, one central agency
responsible for technical regulation, and therefore safety levels are consistent across
all three Services. There is now consistent training, for example, Army aviation
technicians trained for Army multi role helicopters (MRH-90), will have completed
the same course and to the same standard as the Navy aviation technicians for Navy
MRH-90s. 9 Therefore, when Army MRH-90s aircraft deploy onto a LHD with Navy
MRH-90s aircraft, workforce savings and efficiencies are possible. The other obvious
advantage is cost, as there is one technical regulatory organisation, one principal
training authority and one management process so there is no overlap of responsibilities
and no duplication of services. The critics argue loss of control for the non-principal
Services; however, the advantages of single Service equipment management heavily
outweigh the few disadvantages.
Joint training extends further than just maintenance technicians, telecommunications,
catering and medical trainees are all trained at joint training schools. 10 Again, this
training process is extremely cost effective, as the number of trainees from each
Service makes single Service training inefficient. Joint training also ensures standard
processes and procedures across all three Services. In an expeditionary sense, forces
embarked onto the current Kanimbla class amphibious ships and the heavy landing