F-22 Raptor to Debut at Red Flag

This is an interesting topic, should foreign nations have a good butcher's at the USAF's current love child...

My opinion, its either now, or later. You simply can't attempt to hide the abilities of an operational aircraft, if you plan on using the said aircraft in an allied operation or conflict. Planners need to know if it will be picked up on a given defence system, whats the range of detection for a given system, what are the actually capabilities of the aircraft, can we operate it as a C&C aircraft, an ELINT aircraft etc. The list is endless. Sure if I built a really pretty and super dooper swiss army knife do it all aircraft, you wouldn't want any one knowing just how good OR bad it really is.

Considering that two foreign pilots already have access to, two of the latest in stealth technology, the B-2 and F-22, not to mention the fact that they are serving in an operational capacity, such as their american counterparts in the UK, I will guantee you that the RAF are more than aware of the actual performance abilities of the said aircraft.

I am un aware if any other foreign nation have picked up the keys to these aircraft, nor what nations will be flying at the RED FLAG event. Any one want to fill me in?

[edit on 10-10-2006 by InterestedBrit]

Good post above.


The USAF would probably like to know if the F-22 does exactly what it says on the tin against as many possible threats as they can find.

If this involves different jets from different countries so be it.


I'm sure they'd rather find out at red flag than in actual combat that PIRATE can get a lock 80 miles off if the F-22 is at attitude X,Y or Z to the EF2000, or that the LPI radar isn't so LPI at all against the RWR of a ... I dunno, Mirage 2000 for instance...

Better safe than sorry.

Oh my, what a post the above one is. However I think the USAF would be much more content in letting others think those things are true rather then, officially, if you will, dispelling them as myths.

And like I said before there is no need to involve the Raptor in such exercises in order to ensure that in can operate in a multi national campaign. Look at the F-117 and B-2, were they at Red Flag before GW 1 and the Kosovo War? Allies should only know a minimum amount of information about it, and especially not performance capabilities of it going up against their aircraft. The US knows how effective the F-22 is and we are working on how it can best be used in combat. And seeing as how in any future war I can't see it being directly sent in with allied aircraft unless we start talking about WWIII, I don't see the real pressing need.

Furthermore I disagree with the notion that because there is an exchange program that the UK or the US knows everything about the Typhoon or F-22. Those pilots are still restricted by their respective air forces OPSEC regulations. They cannot simply call back home and say "hey did you know that the F-22 can super cruise at Mach 1.8 at 60K?" They are active duty pilots for their host nation, and this program would not continue if such discussions took place. But even in a worst case scenario giving general information about the Raptor's or Typhoon's capabilities is not the same as actually testing it against a foreign weapon system and seeing how it performs.

Furthermore I disagree with the notion that because there is an exchange program that the UK or the US knows everything about the Typhoon or F-22. Those pilots are still restricted by their respective air forces OPSEC regulations. They cannot simply call back home and say "hey did you know that the F-22 can super cruise at Mach 1.8 at 60K?" They are active duty pilots for their host nation, and this program would not continue if such discussions took place. But even in a worst case scenario giving general information about the Raptor's or Typhoon's capabilities is not the same as actually testing it against a foreign weapon system and seeing how it performs.

Having served with guys who were exchange officers (AUS, UK and US aircrew), the first thing they do when they get home is talk about what the platform they flew did. In detail. If the USAF brass were that worried about secrets being passed on, the exchange program wouldn't be happening. It is a fact of life with exchanges. And while they may not jump on the phone and call home, foreign aircrew from what I have seen spend a lot of time visiting their embassies when they have been on exchange to Australia. Wonder why they would do that?

And finally, if the UK pilots are flying in operational squadrons, which they are, then they know exactly how the platforms perform against a range of real world systems, and accurately modelled systems. You can't fly a jet at an operational squadron and somehow be compartmented from its true capabilities. It is impossible. The simple fact is the UK know the capabilities of the F-22 and B-2, so the next question, is what is the impact of having Australian and other nations fly with them at Flags?

Willard856,

>>
If you are playing in the same airspace (and while I understand you don't think other nations should, unfortunately for you that is the way things are going to be for a few years yet) then you need to understand how the other platforms operate.
>>

Why? During all of IOT&E the Raptor _has not_ trained with other nation's airframes in the GSTF role. Even from amongst our own inventory, it has ONLY really operated in conjunction with the B-2, EA-6B and F-117. With the F-16 as a Dorito SEAD asset (crunch all you like, we'll send more).

>>
McGettrick: We plan to use the Aggressor F-16s out of Nellis as our primary adversaries. They will augment their force with other units. We will protect B-2, F-117, and F-16 aircraft as part of our own strike packages. We may have AWACS, if available, and tankers. Other than the EA-6B Prowler, we don’t plan to use assets from other branches of the military or from other air forces.
>>

www.f22fighter.com...

This is because the F-22 doesn't have the munitions options, sensorization, or NUMBERS to accomplish the hand holding (close escort) mission and is indeed _dependent_ on the signature threshold of true LO aircraft to /allow it the freedom/ to operate on it's own, ahead of them. It doesn't have the ARMs to suppress for a package. It doesn't operate in the same altitude bands to be bothered by their shots (though F-15 drivers have shot through F-117 packages). Since there are _very few_ aircraft with the same performance and NONE with the same signature, IF you see it at all, you don't need to concern yourself with it's presence. Because, after all, 'you're one of the good guys'. Snicker.

>>
I'm not going to (be?) escorted by a UAV, but when mission planning I need to understand how it fits into the bigger picture.
>>

Don't try to molly coddle me with the word unmanned. A UAV may well be operating in the target airspace, at or through the path that a munition if not airframe has to pass. 'Look out for X' as a mission planning element of doctrine thus is justified when the Predator has the potential to get in the way without realizing it and lacks the performance to scoot out from under on short notice.

The F-22 operates alone. Just as the 117 did. Just as the B-2 does.

>>
Sure, the 22 is going to take out the high level anti-access systems before anything else even considers a fence check, but once the door is open, if the F-22 is still in the airspace, you need to understand where it will be, what it is doing, and how it is doing it.
>>

Why? Modern munitions _hit within inches_. Unless you are so partnered up that you can convince China to burn out the optics of satellites over YOUR airspace (since we probably fenestrate them over theirs now) the number of threats which will last more than a day or three at 4-5 sorties per day X 8 bombs per airframe from a 90 plane force (2,880-3,600 DMPIs) of F-22s comes down to just the Big Two Tier 1 Threats. Neither of which can be attacked without devastating consequences for the globe.

AFTER this initial roll back effort, aircraft will be little more than DUMB TRUCKS. In which pilots tool about a kill box or hold in CAS stacks 'waiting and hoping' for a chance to butcher someone before their gas runs out and they are forced to go home so that the tankers can accomodate the /next/ bunch of airframes coming in (such is exactly how the Iraqi 'East and West' OIF campaigns ran and it was an /incredible/ waste of sorties).

Again, particularly with glide-IAM carried in multiple because they are so accurate that they can be lightweight, _We_ _Don't_ _Need_ to have multiple aircraft types going into unreduced threat airspace. We need to have three: Jammers (EA-18). Targeters (MQ-1/9) and Twenty Twos. The sole exception being those instances where there isn't an airfield within 1,500nm of the target area and...gassssp! We have the better strategic, carrier air and cruise options there as well.

>>
Civilian industry generally isn't an acceptable target these days unless there is a direct military advantage to be gained that outweighs the impact on the civilian population.
>>

Other than the fact that it's about the only target that the military can hit reliably without being handheld through multiple levels of air-to-JAG coordination, I'll leave you to talk to the Serbians about their Yugo Factory.

Wars where you don't plan on going in are won by making the lives of innocents and rich men 'unbearable' from outside. OAF is thus more likely to be representative than OIF and there we did indeed hit water, power, oil refining, industry, bridges, schools. All at once.

'Pure' Air Warfare without the media on the ground is least as important to the overall strategy of campaigning because it lets the Black SOF operate more freely and there are a lot fewer opportunities for undeniable as much as unbiased reporting on what exactly IS being crippled.

>>
Once again, like it or lump it, but that's the way it is. And as for the allies not supporting, how about some examples? During CAS in OIF there were very few times that bombs weren't dropped when needed, and most non-drops were due to piss poor terminal controlling or C2 screw-ups. Coming home with bombs in a war zone is a crap feeling, especially when in many cases it was needless.
>>

Canadian pilots in the first Gulf War flew ONLY Air Superiority missions because they were afraid of being perceived as 'the other ugly Americans'. Ozzian pilots in OEF said they would not bomb what wasn't clearly identified as hostile, even though the SOF troopies callind down the shots often could ONLY describe 'second hut from the left' as the Northern Alliance pushed through Afghan villages. Spanish pilots in OAF several times ignored U.S. fragged targets in 'civillian centers' of Pristina and Nis. Again, /even though/ they were being fragged to kill paramilitary regional HQs and 'waystations' which SOF had done incredible legwork to build rapport and confirm.

And that's just the Hornet community!

By comparison, useless as it is with the A2A optimized gun, when a Beagle pilot hears the call he WILL come down to strafe in support of a unit on the ground. He just won't take less than 26 minutes to arrive and confirm targeting for his precious GBU-12. Such would change if UCAVs were a permanent fixture over every foot slogging ground force, large or small.

>>
Does every post of yours have to turn into this? Those who have been here long enough know your thoughts on the matter. I've certainly posted that UAVs and DEW are the way of the future, though I disagree with your timeline. But the whole pilot bashing is getting a little old. It cheapens your argument more than anything.
>>

The reason is simple: You all assume that 'by the time Tranche 3 arrives' and thus 'when Meteor and AMSAR level the playing field'. As if measuring the effectiveness of an airframe subsystem or weapons package (available in 5-10 years for 5-10 billion) justifies the extreme cost of the overall new, _manned_ design which will malinger for 30-40, driving doctrine unfairly to support it's own vulnerability while /raping/ the acquisition accounts. At 100 billion or more. Costs which can only be recouped through export of a system which itself drives the escalatory technology spiral, ever upwards.

Such logic is flawed and the proof is obvious in that that same weapons system on an _existing_ fighter (Tornado F.3 for instance) will totally dominate an extant Su-27 or MiG-29 or J-10 or Mirage 2000 (or F-15/16/18). While such technology, widespread, will result in even a Flubber having _the same ultimate vulnerability_ as the Super Flanker or Su-40 that shoots another 100nm range weapon back at it.

The only reason to compare best-fighter status among friends is if you are interested in whoring them to idiot barbarians too stupid to develop their own but looking for the trade and/or status symbolism of Western High Tech, which they can in turn sell on the sly to techint harvesting teams.

As such, Tranche 3 is likely only going to happen, if at all, through exports.

Now, let's go one further Reality Check: UCAV with million dollar LRAAM in bay and -25dbsm frontal signature. From a position only twenty five miles away from airbase X, _subsonic_, **without radar** (which desigantion and datalinking source is offboard in an RTIP modified RQ-4, another 200-300 miles back), it fires said Meteor at a hostile Su-30 armed with K-30 and R-77.

Now the drone can't outmaneuver the threat jet. It can't out run it. Lacking significant onboard sensors (which are all A2G optimized) for the mission; it can't even /call itself a 'fighter'/.

And yet, robot vs. russki jet, it-not-he wins, 9 times out of 10, as a wheels in well tactical execution using only about 30% of the Meteors total range.

Furthermore, unlike the 'fighter' which cannot linger (F-22) and may well not even be able to penetrate (Flubber), this jet has a 1,200nm + 2hrs radius + loiter option (unrefueled) and 360` signature value which is within 5 dbsm from any quarter(no embarrassing tails, canopy, gaping inlets etc.).

And it is cheap. So that while one jet hangs over the threat airfield, 'quite a few' others go looking for the TBM TELs which promise to rain chemicals down on the invasion force. Or on the airfields and carriers which sent them.

i.e. BEING PRESENT to win is the most critical element of doing so, whether a man is grabbing the stick to give his 'pickle' consent or not.

ONLY A TOTAL MORONIC AIR HEAD WOULD FAIL TO SEE WHAT THIS MEANS.

Because that UCAV will cost on the order of 25 million dollars. And it will NEVER need training. And it will not care that it's wingman was just flash vaporized by a laser fired from almost a 1,000km away. Or 20.

>>
And as for the holier-than-thou snipe at other nation's signature mapping the F-22, the US isn't particularly well known for playing by the book in this regard either. It is a fact of life when operating with other nations, so deal with it. And seeing as foreign aircrew are already flying your two most sensitive platforms, who really cares about corner reflectors or pencil beams?
>>

Re: U.S. Technical Intelligence Espionage: Like I really care who WE spy on, overseas. I'm more worried about what our Glorious Leader has defacto demanded into acceptance if not law as a function of 'monitoring' U.S..

Re: Foreign Aircrew in our most valuable platforms: I didn't agree with it when it was the F-117 (unlike what was said in the above article, the Brit did NOT deploy to ODS, he just got a free ride that kept an American from having the same training cycle. Even as our lads don't get the same rights of rank and command in the RAF as they do here.) and I sure as hell don't care for it now. For all the good it does.

That said, I have nothing but contempt for the notion of nominally friendly states wanting to 'familiarize themselves' with the Raptor as a stated function of gaining interservice doctrinal experience while actually taking the opportunity to exploit our systems modes, codes and signatures through a shared training environment.

I didn't say I was surprised by it. The human animal is nothing if not a low conniving beast.

Just that I find it 'typical' of the hubris of the poor city state 'nations' wanting to do everything possible to denigrate a platform which utterly outclasses their best efforts and then 'insisting' on getting to know it, intimately.

That they will likely do so while exploiting OUR HOSPITALITY in gaining whatever techint they can so that they can once more try to catch up without putting the $$$$ in to earn it is what makes us look stupid for playing their game.

>>
While the US might be fine in Iran, and maybe North Korea with unilateral action, you might need some help with China. And a theatre like that is not the place to be learning Coalition ops on the fly. And that's why Red Flags and Iraqs have other nations participating. Not for the easy fights now, but the harder ones to come.
>>

China will never be attacked short of a full scale nuclear exchange. Just like Saudi was not attacked when it turned out that 90% of the terrorists were from there.

They are our most important industrial manufacturing (aka slave labor) source and hold a _significant_ chunk of our debt as well.

That said, it makes absolutely ZERO sense to state that "If we can't do it alone, we should invest in making ourselves compatible with lesser parties for the purposes of having them along for the ride...".

And neither the Flubber nor the JSF (if and when) can do MORE of the things necessary to win the war than our 'oh so expensive it must be worthless' Raptors.

Coalitioning is an exercise in hypocrisy. Not least because, like all tactics and strategies, it not only costs more in the long run to buy the loyalty of 'friends and allies' than what you lose in force unity but it teaches your enemy to act in the same fashion of building a consensus before the world and 'calling it good' because it has numbers behind it. We will come to regret the day that we let the freakin' Arab/Islamic world pretend they are more than rabid dogs howling for blood in the UN.

NATO is a dead horse that does next to nothing for U.S. (and never has, really), the only reason nobody puts a bullet in it is because they are afraid of a Franco-German followon.

Finally, 'good friends' who insist on getting the production technology for a system that they cannot build on their own but insist is a 'must have' of preferential purchase, even over the very wunderjetten that is Flubber are only as valuable as the number of aircraft they purchase /in addition/ to U.S. baseline inventory numbers of the same (worthless as teats on a boar hog) airframe.

When those threshold U.S. service numbers fall below the level at which foreign export sales can make up _in total_, let alone by-region, then the notion that these 'near and dear friends' are worth anything becomes all the more laughable.

Over China, the UCAV may have some use because of it's range and loiter and the need for a mosaic, netcentric, imaging system to handle the likely critical targets of the next 50 years (TBMs with smart seekers).

The JSF will come to be seen as the next F-104. We weren't stupid enough to buy the Starfighter, why should we be stuck /paying/ to compromise our LO for your national if not notional military convenience now?


KPl.

Westpoint

Its a pleasure to speak with you, as for your belief in imposing OPSEC restrictions on a pilot, I find it difficult if not impossible to believe that this would be possible. On aircraft such as the F-22 or Eurofighter, you can not simply "hide" or restrict access to or material on a given airframe, these aren't the spit and bolt aircraft of the 20's or 40's. The tech manuals for engine management are huge, not to mention the weapons, computers, lifesupport etc.

Also, I am sorry but I am willing to bet a considerable amount of my money on the fact that any exchange pilot recieves some "extra" training before heading to the other nations airforce, usually the intelligence type of training. P.S. All pilots are debriefed on the aircraft they flew, thats a given for any airforce in the world.

Ch1466

I would just like to first say hello and mention that your posts appear well laid out and are supported, in most cases, by solid facts.

I must also mention that upon reading most of your posts in regard to not only this situation, but others on this board, your views and your knowledge are some what confusing to me.

I would firstly like to ask why you must insist in referring to the Eurofighter as the "Flubber", does it relate to the film which Robin Williams starred in? Does it glow green or maybe it can dance? I would like to get your insight on this matter.

Sadly, your right in one respect, if you like it or not, foreign aircrew are flying american build aircraft, but I wouldn't be so quick to say that the foreign crews demanded or requested, it doesn't work like that, the USAF wanted to have a look at the Eurofighter, RAF said yes, the USAF returns the favour. That is how the military machine works in regards to exchange programs. I will be honest, I am all for them. Also, some of the tech intergrated into those All American Platforms, aren't always american, Europe and Israel seem to help in those regards, not to mention when some of the companies that produce parts or aircraft for the american military are owned or partly owned by european companies.

I would also advise against saying that foreign nations only wish to copy the US. Sure, I can believe some do, but you lower my opinion of you when you make such statements, as not long ago, the Americans borrowed tech here and there to aid their military machine.

Its not all black and white.
Many Thanks.

Greetings IB,

>>
I would firstly like to ask why you must insist in referring to the Eurofighter as the "Flubber", does it relate to the film which Robin Williams starred in? Does it glow green or maybe it can dance? I would like to get your insight on this matter.
>>

I hold no truck with Mork. OTOH, while not the precise image I had in mind this will do for an x-plane-ation:

www.sixtiescity.com...

The Typhoon is a good looking jet but one which was designed for CentFront warfare where Radii were expected to be under 150nm and lifespan could be measured in minutes. As such, it's principle 'magic ingredient' is it's weapons systems and specifically in this context, the Meteor. Which is no big surprise as the system has roots going back to the Swedish RB.73 and S-225XR projects.

But what was a pipedream in the 1980s (250km missile in a 400-450lb class) is now real and 'thinking they could sell it', the Brits refused to trade down for the ERAAM which is effectively the AIM-120D.

So now we are looking at a jet which cannot penetrate (even with ALARM and Brimstone), has no legs and the wrong gender of inflight refueling to fulfill the expeditionary requirement, and is equipped with a weapons system whose technology baseline WILL DRIVE the rest of the world towards extended BVR engagements.

Which means that all of OUR support systems, be they tankers, BMC2 or ISR, are now hostaged to a jet whose sole utility lies in defense against the very _conventional signature, high value_ assets which everyone depends on the U.S. to provide.

Gee. Thanks.

>>
Sadly, your right in one respect, if you like it or not, foreign aircrew are flying American build aircraft, but I wouldn't be so quick to say that the foreign crews demanded or requested, it doesn't work like that, the USAF wanted to have a look at the Eurofighter, RAF said yes, the USAF returns the favour.
>>

We don't need a look at your jet. You blew it, along with the rest of Europe, when you took 'an evolutionary approach' (along with deceptive concept artwork) to mean F-15 performance in an F/A-18 sized platform with 'moderate stealth'. The truth is now the opposite. Our SC&M fighter is in the F-15 class, it has working (field maintainable) VLO and it can bomb without having to engage intervening threat air as a true COE/4FL strike warfare platform which is largely compromised by having to work with other jets.

Until and unless you can prove otherwise, you are getting a free ride that 'gentlemen don't ask other gentleman's secrets' we should politely be refusing /no matter who/ did the 'requesting'.

Agility is dead. Supersprint is dead. Radius, Weapons Systems and Netcentrics are /everything/. And while I wouldn't mind seeing BVRAAM hung from our jets, the simple fact of the matter is that I would frankly prefer we restart Have Dash II or the AAAM coal bed as buy from someone whose loyalties are industrially compromised 'towards the Continent'.

>>
That is how the military machine works in regards to exchange programs.
>>

The 'Military Machine' works like any corrupt organization, solely to sustain themselves. That said, they have little or no insight into how dangerous Europe is becoming and hence have a 'jolly ol' boys club' mentality about our 'special relationship' which frankly is not supported by common goals anymore.

>>
I will be honest, I am all for them. Also, some of the tech integrated into those All American Platforms, aren't always american, Europe and Israel seem to help in those regards, not to mention when some of the companies that produce parts or aircraft for the american military are owned or partly owned by european companies.
>>

British Corps went on a buying spree in the 90s when Clinton sold off our industrial base in trade for becoming a service economy forever under dole from those who hold our debt. If the equipment involved was principally, /originally/, British, I might have less qualms. But frankly the F-22 is and should be American. And owning BAe Sanders (among others) does not a justification in 'trans Atlantic Partnership' make.

I despise this element of globalization and can only think of a poem written by another man about another self sufficient state beset by hangers on:

"She is like a beautiful woman, clad in raiments of cloth of gold, bedecked in the finest jewels, lying on a bed of silken pillows, pregnant with a child called Empire. And covered with lice." Such was Rome. Such IS America.

We are forgetting our roots in a misguided effort to solve the world's problems. And it will disintegrate our society, dragging us down to the level of all the other wannabes and have beens if we are not careful.

>>
I would also advise against saying that foreign nations only wish to copy the US. Sure, I can believe some do, but you lower my opinion of you when you make such statements, as not long ago, the Americans borrowed tech here and there to aid their military machine.
>>

WWII and Jet Engines? Please. We paid the world 10X over for those 'gifts', dying in droves to save Europe from her own stupidity. And all's we got for our efforts was stewardship of a poor house that was NATO.

Some gift.

>>
Its not all black and white.
>>

Somethings are. We don't give away /all/ our secrets. We don't brag about what is not within the scope of other's need to know. We don't degrade our own military capabilities solely to assure 'operational harmony' under a Joint Force environment that /never has/ worked all that well. And which is increasingly top heavy and irrelevant today with the advent of multiple small weapons carriage and the shift away from direct super power confrontationalism to a pre-WWI style sniping-at-the-periphery style of warfare for which 90% of todays systems are not even optimized to win.


KPl.

ch1944

I thank you for replying so promptly to my post.

I will agree with you on one aspect of the Eurofighter, it was built for a different role and to a different list of requirements. While I agree that it isn't the end all in fighter aircraft construction or development, I feel it is unfair to list it as a "mere evolutionary step". Again I agree that some of it's abilities or features aren't the most important any more, much the same way that the F-22 has had a limited A2G role forced upon it. With development times measured in decades now, rather than weeks or months which was common in the 40's, its just a fact of life that the current aerospace industry just can't adapt quickly enough to the changing face of warfare.

As for support systems, I agree that the americans do provide a large proportion of the Air to Air refueling mission's. Its simple, you simply have more aircraft that we do, I don't see how one flight in support of Eurofighters, is any different from supporting an ANG F-16 flight in a joint operation. British aircraft are often tasked in other areas, which support American operations, its all give and take.

Your quite correct, the military is no different than any government or global business. I can not fault your reasoning in this position. As for the exchange program, the USAF did request to have a look at the Eurofighter, no military would give up the chance to look at a new aircraft, it allows the respective airforce a chance to see what is being done different, what sucks, what can be used to improve their own aircraft etc. I do believe that even 80's era soviet aircraft are still being flight tested in the US against current aircraft for testing. You never give up a chance to look at the other persons deck.

Its a fact that most of the current aerospace companies are in part or whole owned by a 'Foreign' nation. So in some way or means that does provide access to american trade secrets and in the same way, allows the americans to look at some of the advanced construction methods or technology that we use. I can't see that as a bad thing...

My World War Two fighter example was used to show that you can't climb into a fighter any more and just fly by the seat of your pants, can you take a stab at how many switches or dials need to be set, just to get your turbines running, never mind the weapons, nav etc. You can not expect a pilot to fly an aircraft without all the required materials, without restriction, it isn't safe.

Last time I checked European nations helped you out in a number of situations, not only including the war against the Japanese, do you really want to start dragging this thread into a match in which you demonstrate how much the rest of the world owes america, I think we should stop now.

Many Thanks

KP

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on a number of points. UCAV doctrine and employment is one area we do agree upon. There is, however, one point I want to specifically address from your post though.

Ozzian pilots in OEF said they would not bomb what wasn't clearly identified as hostile, even though the SOF troopies callind down the shots often could ONLY describe 'second hut from the left' as the Northern Alliance pushed through Afghan villages.

Your sources let you down here. Aus Hornets weren't in Afghanistan. We were at Diego Garcia flying CAP (and yes, before you say it, a total waste of time). The only Australian air assets that have been in the Afghanistan AO are a 707 refueller, and some Chinooks supporting SF.

As for not releasing bombs when called in by SF, this too is wrong, even if you shift your focus to OIF. With terminal control, you can release a bomb without PID of hostile because the guy on the ground "owns" the bomb. The only additional responsibility the aircrew have is an estimation of collateral damage risk (if possible), and I can promise that it would have to be a pretty substantial risk for someone not to drop in support of troops on the ground. In fact, I know of a few examples where our aircraft exposed themselves to threats so that they could drop bombs and support TST missions and provide CAS when collateral risks were identified. I can't really comment on ODS as I was watching it on TV during school holidays. As for Spain, I'd imagine their lack of experience in joint force employment, coupled with limited exposure to allied operations, probably reduced their effectiveness. Maybe they should attend some Flags?