Regardless of your support for or against the Iraqi intervention in the first place, the words, we help create the situation we help fix it comes to mind.

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.

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 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.

The same ROE's as America, or so restrictive that they can't be used for what they are needed for?

Time will tell.

That !

Just because that seems to be the way we operate now.

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.

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.

1) true
2) true
3) true even if using an emotive term.
4) Not illegal if invited by the Iraqi government. Syria is a different ball game though.

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.

Compared to the other bullies - I think I'll stick with this one.
And I kinda like their guns too.

So why don't they sort their own sh*t out..............oh, that's right - because they can't!!:mad:
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.

Abbott seems to be prepping the public for a press release and /
or sounding them out.

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.

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 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.

Hornets putting their stings into the ISIS ruffians: a good news story regardless of vintage. :ok:

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.

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.

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".