Dick,
Your lack of knowledge is letting you down.
from what you are telling me the military has gone backwards
If by "adopting proven overseas equipment", means going backwards, then yes.
By military, I'm assuming you only mean Military ATC, because the military employs a few other groups of people to watch aircraft on RADAR using different systems. I'm just trying to cut off that "we're screwed when the war starts" argument.
In which case, Military ATC systems have a few civil requirements to meet before they will be permitted to separate civil aircraft. Again, you target military, but this isn't an exclusively military problem.
Is there a personal issue there Dick?
why not give the Tower some extra Airspace like Canberra
The tower cannot see aircraft in the corridor apart from a few gaps in the dunes, so they would have to predominantly use the RADAR, just like the Approach Controller. It's a benefit vs workload balance, and considering that the Tower Controller's job is focussed on circuit traffic management, approach is usually the best choice.
What I am told, of course, is that when they have lots of traffic – say, in 1986 when the Hornet arrived – that the military controllers can bend the rules, break the regulations, and handle a lot of traffic safely.
First. It isn't 1986 and despite your claims, ATC has evolved - remarkably, managing to ditch a few bad habits along with picking up some more along the way. This job is barely recognisable from the one it was ten years ago.
Second, Bend and break rules - sure it happens, but not without consequences. You take the risks into your own hands, you are personally responsible. Also, one or two controllers doing so doesn't make it a procedure, nor right for that matter. It's exactly the same as flying.
Third, there are procedures that relax some of the standards/restrictions for military aircraft, but these do not apply to civil aircraft. I'm pretty sure that this was stated earlier in the thread.
Fourth, 'hearsay' isn't used in court for a reason. You berate us for anonymity but hide behind a mysterious third person to mitigate your part in the statement should it be found to be inaccurate.
A final question - I know it was a few years ago, but do you actually know for certain which aircraft it was that you held for or is it just an assumption? Surely you can see why I need to ask this one.