RAAF Hornets to Iraq - question
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 57
Posts: 808
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
but I do not support this intervention. Let the Gulf States do it.
I'm firmly in the position that Iraqi was doing fine till we pulled out. That said we helped them create the fledgling democracy and army not yet capable of defending themselves.
Combine that with the politics of withdrawing, then we have a hand in it. The gulf states are nowhere near strong enogh to deal with the situation by themselves without potentially becoming unstable themselves.
All those states can be considered metastable systems.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: sydney
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Complete ignorance here, so please go easy.
I note that the press conference stated that the F14s are the exact same aircraft used on US carriers.
Is flying Oz Hornets off US carriers realistic? Has there been landing practice on marked-off runway sections with arrestors, full catapult-assisted takeoffs? Has there been any actual Oz carrier operation?
I note that the press conference stated that the F14s are the exact same aircraft used on US carriers.
Is flying Oz Hornets off US carriers realistic? Has there been landing practice on marked-off runway sections with arrestors, full catapult-assisted takeoffs? Has there been any actual Oz carrier operation?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think they actually said the FA-18 Super Hornets were the same as what is flown from US Carriers. That's what I heard.
I'll let others answer the rest.
I'll let others answer the rest.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: cardboard box in't middle of t'road
Posts: 745
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Senator Johnston said there would need to be a specific invitation from Iraq and Australia would want to settle rules of engagement.
Time will tell.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
or so restrictive that they can't be used for what they are needed for?
Just because that seems to be the way we operate now.
Thread Starter
Groaner,
ex RAAF head was asked this on 7:30 last night.
"We don't fly off carriers in the RAAF," he wryly said, but then explained that there are lots of nations nearby who have airfields that they have flown from.
ex RAAF head was asked this on 7:30 last night.
"We don't fly off carriers in the RAAF," he wryly said, but then explained that there are lots of nations nearby who have airfields that they have flown from.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Virginia
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1. The US doesn't need any RAAF assistance.
2. US benefits from Australian participation as it can sell the job as an 'Allied' effort.
3. Australia benefits in receiving the good gear from the gun runners and all the other benefits of hanging around with the school bully.
4. ROE more restrictive since US actions are arguably illegal.
2. US benefits from Australian participation as it can sell the job as an 'Allied' effort.
3. Australia benefits in receiving the good gear from the gun runners and all the other benefits of hanging around with the school bully.
4. ROE more restrictive since US actions are arguably illegal.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
3) We get the good gear anyway, virtually anything asked for !
Syria IS going to be interesting !
Trade off - US supports the leader and he'll let them in to crush ISIS.
What is more interesting is what support the US gets from Arab nations, He's let them down
so many times, no wonder they took action by themselves.
Syria IS going to be interesting !
Trade off - US supports the leader and he'll let them in to crush ISIS.
What is more interesting is what support the US gets from Arab nations, He's let them down
so many times, no wonder they took action by themselves.
Last edited by 500N; 28th Aug 2014 at 05:54.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Victoria
Age: 62
Posts: 984
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is more interesting is what support the US gets from Arab nations, He's let them down
so many times, no wonder they took action by themselves.
so many times, no wonder they took action by themselves.
F*ck 'em, I say. Let 'em wipe each other out, then negotiate with the winners for the oil......which is the only reason we speak to them to start with.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: The polar tropics
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tartare at #68 wrote
The last Australian to launch from a carrier for a sortie in hostile skies (Iraq) was CO 800 NAS, in HMS Invincible, in 1999, driving an FA2.
He was one the RAN Skyhawk drivers who sought greener pastures in Blighty after being given the heave-ho in '83.
ex RAAF head was asked this on 7:30 last night.
"We don't fly off carriers in the RAAF,"
"We don't fly off carriers in the RAAF,"
He was one the RAN Skyhawk drivers who sought greener pastures in Blighty after being given the heave-ho in '83.
Today's Australian mentioned E-7A Wedgetails to Iraq as well as Super Hornets, "transports" and SAS.
RAAF C-130J's are in the Gulf now and have been for ages.
http://www.9news.com.au/national/201...-kurds-in-iraq
RAAF C-130J's are in the Gulf now and have been for ages.
http://www.9news.com.au/national/201...-kurds-in-iraq
Last edited by TBM-Legend; 30th Aug 2014 at 22:57.
RAAF F/A-18F Super Hornets x 6 completed 2900 combat hours, over 400 missions with 100% mission serviceability over 7 months. [source RAAF release] They are now replaced by six F/A-18A's from No 75 Sqn. Here's hoping they do as well.
RAAF F/A-18F Super Hornets x 6 completed 2900 combat hours, over 400 missions with 100% mission serviceability over 7 months
100%? Seems awfully high. Wonder what broke bits weren't considered mission essential equipment to allow continued ops, or how many spares were available on a daily basis.
Enough spare aircraft - so that what couldn't be fixed on start-up just meant crew swapped aircraft.
100% tasked take-offs achieved...which probably translates into achieving 100% of tasked missions.
Enough spare aircraft - so that what couldn't be fixed on start-up just meant crew swapped aircraft.
100% tasked take-offs achieved...which probably translates into achieving 100% of tasked missions.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oz
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BB, correct
Most days only 2 or 4 jets were tasked, so with a deployment of 6, it wasn't uncommon for a spare to be generated as a backup. The "100% mission serviceability" should probably read "mission availability".
Most days only 2 or 4 jets were tasked, so with a deployment of 6, it wasn't uncommon for a spare to be generated as a backup. The "100% mission serviceability" should probably read "mission availability".
