|
RAAF Hornets to Iraq - question
A genuine question.
The RAAF is sending C130s to Iraq - why not a strike element as well to assist with airstrikes? I read the RAF Tonkas are already in Cyprus. I assume it's the perceived politics of doing so, and not any inter-operability or technical limitations? Possibly cost/ferry time? |
The two C-130's were already in the United Arab Emirates.
I read they just needed crews to get there. I also think Aus doesn't like using our RAAF / RAAC hardware that much, at least not for killing people or at least publicising it if it does get used. We have had 10 years of war yet not much got used apart from Transports. Just my HO. |
Probably out of warranty now...
|
Budget emergency, cost of smart bombs:p. If we could get the Iraqi's to pay for them though:E
|
We have had 10 years of war yet not much got used apart from Transports. |
Yes, valid point.
Why do we buy all this expensive gear - Hornets, Super Hornets, Tigers which can all be used to support our troops in battle yet we hardly seem to use them, especially when it was a great opportunity to put practice into reality. Way back in the early 1990's we had an F-111 in direct support on a live fire ex at Woomera with the same unit that was in Afghanistan for most if not all of the 10 years doing the exact support role they would do in Afghanistan - dropping bombs. Why always practice, practice, practice like Pitch Black and not use them ? |
500N,
Our politicians have a history of not wanting to commit our aircraft to offensive operations, this severely restricts their use to coalition forces and often results in flag waving missions. Until this position changes, the offensive aircraft will continue to only attend air shows and 'Operational' Exercises, whatever they are! |
Yes, agree, good explanation.
I see we are very quick to send half our fleet of C-17's (3) to Europe running 23 hours a day, a MRTT, a med and surgical team and a force element (Plus of course the AFP). A perfect flag waving exercise. |
RAAF Hornets to Iraq - question
To the OP, yes the Tornadoes are in Cyprus but they are not tasked with strike missions.
I recommend you read the briefings a little more closely. They MAY get a strike tasking in the future but for the moment they are there as Intel assets. And no, I don't believe that that makes sense. |
Never be used- we couldn't afford the allowances for the Pilots!:E
What no 6 star hotels?:ok: |
They used to pull that old chestnut in the Army when things were tough.
Keep exercises less than the kick in point for bush time / away from family / field allowances - or whatever they were called. |
Never be used- we couldn't afford the allowances for the Pilots! What no 6 star hotels? |
Joined the wrong service mate! |
Bit of thread drift- but the worst offenders for ridiculous allowances were the RAN HS 748 EW Trainer crews whilst on major exercises- we were oof course just jealous- Tin City Darwin is perfectly suitable accom..:hmm:
|
Nothing wrong with Tin ****y mate.
Our fighter fleet is primarily a deterrent. Yes, they could be used overseas, but not at the risk of not providing a suitable force at home. Iraq 2003 is an example. Hornets provided a suitable strike capability, intergrated with our international friends, but with enough aircraft and crew back at home to do what the RAAF is primarily and often forgotten that it is tasked with, defending Australia. |
Junior
Thanks, good answer ! Got to keep those Asylum seekers at bay ;) :O It's a pity we can't spare a 4+ aircraft det on a rotation basis out of 95 mostly front line aircraft. How much is operational experience worth ? |
Junior
Defending AUS from whom? PNG, Singapore, Indonesia, NZ???
|
IRAQ 2003 :-
Reports indicate that the No. 75 Squadron's activities were somewhat restricted in their military role compared to similarly equipped US forces. Australian aircraft were not permitted to operate in the "Baghdad SuperMEZ" (Missile Exclusion Zone) because of fears that the Hornet's electronic warfare systems were inadequate, though the report indicates that they were identical to American Hornets operating in this area. Furthermore, they were not permitted to conduct close air support missions in urban areas because of fears of collateral damage. These restrictions were in line with the rules of engagement set by the Australian Government, which were reportedly more restrictive than the rules governing the conduct of British and American forces. This isn't about having a 'go' at the fast jet guys, we were similarly limited, but could provide other assistance. If fast jets can't drop bombs, they are limited to shows of strength, as was the case in the latter part of the campaign. |
Didn't Aus also provide some FA-18's to take over security duties on the Island of Diego Garcia which released US aircraft for the war ?
Surplus I think these restrictive ROE's are not good. We had Aus pilots serving with the US squadrons - I think Matt Hall was one, we need to be on the same page in regards to ROE's in an integrated, multi coalition war. Just my HO. |
Hey cobbers, quit your whinging! Don't forget that there are some Aussie people on exchange with nations that are overtly supporting past and present ops where there isn't an Aus footprint. You guys pull more than your weight in my opinion and when South East Asia goes t!ts up then guess who will be expected to lead (like you have been looking for a lost airliner)?
More than happy to have an Aussie as wingman any time! LJ :ok: |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 04:05. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.