Air Marshal Angus Houston AO, AFC-Chief of Air Force

Air Marshal Houston joined the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) as a cadet pilot in 1970 and spent the early part of his career flying Iroquois helicopters in various parts of Australia, Papua New Guinea and Indonesia before qualifying as an instructor and completing several instructional tours on Macchi, BAC Strikemaster and Iroquois aircraft. He was posted in 1979 to Hill Air Force Base, Utah USA for exchange flying duties with a US Air Force helicopter unit.

After attending the RAAF Staff College, Air Marshal Houston was posted to the Department of Air (Development Division) where he was involved in the Blackhawk Helicopter Project. In 1987 he assumed command of No 9 Squadron to introduce the Blackhawk helicopter, to relocate the unit from Amberley to Townsville, and to transfer the capability to the Australian Army.

After graduating from Joint Services Staff College, Air Marshal Houston was posted to the Joint Operations staff at Headquarters Australian Defence Force and was involved in strategic planning during the Gulf crisis of 1990/91. On promotion to Group Captain in July 1992, he assumed the post of Director Air Force Policy and negotiated the establishment of the RSAF Flying School at RAAF Base Pearce before assuming command of No 86 Wing (Airlift Group) from 1994-95.

Air Marshal Houston attended the Royal College of Defence Studies in London in 1996. He was Chief of Staff, Headquarters Australian Theatre in 1997-99, Commander Integrated Air Defence System from 1999-2000 and Head Strategic Command from 17 August 2000. Air Marshal Houston was appointed Chief of Air Force in 2001. He spoke to ADM's Canberra Correspondent, Daniel Cotterill, in mid July.
ADM: What has been the highlight to date of your time as CAF?

Houston: The highlight has been a constant throughout my time as Chief of Air Force, which is now over three years, and that is leading a highly motivated, professional and dedicated bunch of people through very challenging times. I have been very pleased with the way our people have embraced our values-based leadership culture which emphasises people, and our vision for a balanced expeditionary and networked air force. I think the proof is demonstrated convincingly in the great operational success that we have had, and if you look at every operation that we've conducted over the last three years we have achieved mission success rates in excess of 95 per cent. Our people have done very, very well and I'm very proud of them.

ADM: And the lowlight?

Houston: The receipt of the F-111 Deseal/Reseal Report and the realisation that we hurt a lot of people over many years and the fact that the President of the Board of Inquiry, as he debriefed me, indicated to me that he thought that we had a culture of platforms before people or aircraft before people. Obviously that's something that I took pretty hard and I think we as an Air Force were really at a pretty low point in terms of the realisation that all those people have been hurt in what was considered a fairly routine maintenance activity for the 20 years that it was conducted.

ADM: What does the future hold for Angus Houston? Are you likely to be extended when your current term is up? Do you want to be CDF?

Houston: My tenure finishes in July 2005 at the same time as my fellow Chiefs, the VCDF and indeed the CDF himself. At that time the government of the day will decide on who will be the next Chief of the Defence Force and clearly all of us are potential options and I wouldn't say any more than that. What I will say is that come July next year I would anticipate that I will hand the reins over to another individual to be Chief of Air Force, and after four years, I think that's about the right time. I still enjoy it; it's a magnificent job.

ADM: Are you happy with the progress so far on the F-35 and are you still confident it is the right aircraft for Australia at the right time?

Houston: The latest advice is that we could still get Block 2 JSFs in 2012 if we require them at that time. I believe very enthusiastically that we've made the right decision. Now when I say the right decision I'm saying right decision in terms of provision of advice to government because as yet, the only decision that's been taken is to join SDD and the decision to actually acquire JSF will be taken at a later stage - at this stage planned for 2006/2007. We have a lot of people working on the JSF including 30 DSTO scientists and the more we see, the more we learn, the more we like it. It's looking like being a very, very capable aircraft. It will be a highly capable fifth generation, stealthy, air combat aircraft, and we expect that it will be able to replace all of the capabilities provided by the F/A-18 and the F-111 and also provide us with additional capability beyond what those two platforms currently have.

ADM: Given Air Force's key role in relation to the ADF's capability to mount amphibious operations, will the acquisition of some STOVL F-35s be considered as recommended by the recent report from the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade on Maritime strategy?

Houston: As I've said already, no decisions have been taken. We believe in Air Force that the conventional take-off and landing aircraft will meet all of our needs, but as yet we haven't actually responded to that report because we only got it a short time ago and we're still crafting our response. But having said all of that, a STOVL version of the JSF is a lot more expensive than the CTOL version. I understand we're talking in terms of a substantial difference in cost between the two. The other thing that I think is relevant is the fact that the STOVL version of the JSF will have an operational radius of only 450 nautical miles versus something in excess of 600 nautical miles for the CTOL version. Another thing that is also significant is that the STOVL is a 7g aircraft versus the 9g for the CTOL version, and it also has no internal gun. Despite all of that, we are having a high level look at what advantages a STOVL might offer in capability terms but again, we need to have a look at the capability versus cost and we also need to have a look at a whole bunch of other factors including what a mixed fleet might do in terms of support costs.

ADM: That Committee also expressed a view that more air-to-air refuelling tankers may be required than are currently planned. Realistically, what are the chances of the tanker order being extended?

Houston: I would love to have more tankers, but the fact of the matter is that we have to make tradeoffs. We've only got $50 billion to invest in capital equipment over the next ten years and if you want to have a properly balanced defence force you have to make hard decisions, and sometimes you have to go for a capability that's probably less than what you would do if you had unlimited resources.

However, again, a nine-fold increase over what we have got right now I think represents a huge increase in capability and I think we've done very well in getting five new wide-bodied aircraft, which will not only be providing our air tanking capability but in line with what a small country with a limited budget needs, they will also have the capacity to be used in a multi-role way. They will be able to be used for airlift as well, to carry large numbers of people depending on what set of circumstances we're dealing with at the time, and they'll also have Link 16 and EW self-protection.

ADM: Given the focus on NCW, are we likely to pursue a smart tanker concept and use these aircraft as command posts and communications nodes?

Houston: This is something that we will look at closely, but Link 16 on the tankers will enable us to fit the tankers in to our networked air force in the future in a very effective way. How we develop the network into the future needs a lot more work and we are obviously going to explore every idea and exploit the full potential of what might be available. Bear in mind that we are going to be fielding six brand new AEW&C at the same time as we're going to be acquiring the tankers, at the same time as we are completely refurbishing our command and control and communications infrastructure with Vigilaire. So in the very near future we're going to have the ability, particularly with Link 16 on the Hornet as well, to connect up our whole air combat system and the data enablers with the sensors that provide the situational awareness, and that will give us an incredible capability.

ADM: Are contingency plans for extending the service lives of the Hornets and F-111s fully costed?

Houston: The contingency plans for F-111 and F/A-18 are fully costed. Extending the service life of the F/A-18 by increasing the number of centre barrels replaced from 15 to up to 43 is in the Defence Capability Plan. If all 43 centre barrels are replaced, then the F/A-18 fleet will be able to be maintained until well past 2015. We intend to retain the F-111 in service until all the projects announced by the Minister are complete and in service. This includes the introduction of the AEW&C and obviously the A330 tanker aircraft. It also includes the integration of the long-range stand-off weapons into the AP-3C and the F/A-18 and includes the improved bombs onto the F/A-18. Most importantly, from my point of view, it includes the full upgrade of the F/A-18.

ADM: How do you feel about the campaign against the retirement of the F-111, are you being besieged by armchair experts?

Houston: The people you refer to are campaigning for much more than that. They are advocating a proposal involving a mix of F-22 and upgraded F-111 for Australia's defence well beyond 2020. In fact I've heard a couple of the commentators mention 2040. We in Air Force would be extremely reluctant to proceed down a path to refurbish the F-111 to keep it fully capable until 2040. Our experience with ageing aircraft and Australian unique systems integration into complex aircraft suggests that this would be a high risk and high cost undertaking.

We would have to question the level of capability that would be delivered and the impact on availability of the aircraft if such a programme was undertaken. We would be the sole operator of a very small fleet of highly complex aircraft with very old airframes and very high logistic costs. The cost of refurbishment and systems upgrade would also require substantial capital investment and extensive systems integration and Australia would have to bear the full brunt of NRE. I consider the costs and risks associated with this to have been substantially underestimated by the critics.

Having said all of this, the F-111 is a capable aircraft with some relatively unique capability advantages. However in the changing strategic environment these unique advantages have become much less of a factor on mission success. In summary, and this is the really key thing, a small balanced force such as the Royal Australian Air Force cannot continue to afford the significant overhead of running or conducting major upgrades on a single role, orphan fleet. Within the constraints of a fixed budget, Air Force considers that the most useable capability is based on an affordable, stealthy, flexible, multi-role capable air combat fleet. I don't expect to see too many revamped EH Holdens running around in 2040.

ADM: Given the recent US decision to go with the Boeing 737 based MMA for its manned maritime surveillance requirements, how likely is it that Australia will follow the same path?

Houston: There are two options. We still have the option to refurbish the AP-3C or replace that aircraft with the Boeing 737 MMA. At this point government hasn't made any decisions on the way we will proceed, but we are vitally interested in the development of the MMA and certainly if a decision is made to replace the AP-3C with a new aircraft type, then at this stage the only option appears to be the 737 MMA.

ADM: Are there issues concerning extended range operations far from an airfield with a twin-engine aircraft such as the MMA?

Houston: Extended range operations are not a concern for MMA. These aircraft will have reliability factors that greatly exceed some older four-engine machines. We have been conducting extended range operations from a variety of airfields for many years and I think we're very comfortable with the risks presented. The reliability of modern jet engines is quite extraordinary.

ADM: Given the growing fleets of 737 based RAAF platforms, could the RAAF have an active reserve of pilots who spend most of their time flying for Qantas or Virgin?

Houston: Yes. Airline partnering arrangements of that type have been discussed many times previously, but I think probably what has prevented us proceeding along those lines is that we haven't operated common fleets. So with the introduction of 737 and 330 aircraft I think there's great potential for having much more practical reserve arrangements so that we can plug into Qantas and indeed Virgin for reserve aircrew for specific types of operations. And obviously 737 AEW&C and A330 tanker operations are two of those types of operations. Having said all of that, the tankers and the AEW&C will be operating in tactical environments so it's not as simple as saying well, today we fly this and tomorrow you fly something else. We would anticipate though that there will be people who have flown both types of aircraft who leave the air force to go and fly with the airlines and we can always bring them back to provide that sort of support.