Edit filter log

[ 0 => '{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=', 1 => '{{WikiProject Military history|class=Start|Australian=yes|Aviation=yes|WWI=yes|WWII=yes|National=yes<!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. -->', 2 => '|B-Class-1=no', 3 => '<!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. -->', 4 => '|B-Class-2=no', 5 => '<!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->', 6 => '|B-Class-3=yes', 7 => '<!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->', 8 => '|B-Class-4=yes', 9 => '<!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->', 10 => '|B-Class-5=yes}}', 11 => '{{WikiProject Australia|class=C|importance=high|military=yes|military-importance=High}}', 12 => '{{WikiProject Aviation|class=start', 13 => '|B-Class-1=no', 14 => '<!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. -->', 15 => '|B-Class-2=no', 16 => '<!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->', 17 => '|B-Class-3=yes', 18 => '<!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->', 19 => '|B-Class-4=yes', 20 => '<!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->', 21 => '|B-Class-5=yes', 22 => '}}', 23 => '}}', 24 => false, 25 => '== Rating ==', 26 => 'The reason I rated it as a "Start" is that it could be much more than what it currently is. Just my humble opinion. --[[User:Looper5920|Looper5920]] 13:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)', 27 => ':Do you have any specific suggestions for how the entry could be improved? --[[User:Nick Dowling|Nick Dowling]] 23:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)', 28 => false, 29 => '== BAE Hawk ==', 30 => false, 31 => 'I changed the Hawk's country of origin from EU to Britain. The EU flag should be used only for European multi-national companies/programs such as the Airbus KC-30. [[User:CMarshall|CMarshall]] ([[User talk:CMarshall|talk]]) 07:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)', 32 => false, 33 => '== Future equipment ==', 34 => 'This section is not intirely correct. It should be updated as nothing has been desided officaly as to the replacement of the fleet. Sorry for adding the new section (Fleet retirment and replacements), should have put it in the future equipment section (i'm only new to all this) -- Powderhound11 09:56, 17 October, 2006 (UTC)', 35 => ': While the F-35 hasn't been 'officially' selected, the Minister for Defence and RAAF have recently ruled out purchasing any other aircraft to replace the F/A-18s and F-111s. The F-22 was explicitly ruled out as being unsuitable. See: http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20556293-31037,00.html If you copy and paste non-neutral material from Karlo Copp's website it will be removed - [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]] is worth reading and should help. Kopp's point of view appears to be a minority, with the RAAF, Department of Defence and Australian Security Policy Institute supporting the F-35 over the other available aircraft (the ASPI publication at: http://www.aspi.org.au/publications/publication_details.aspx?ContentID=42&pubtype=5 is a good example of the arguments in favour of the F-35 and the unfeasibility of purchasing F-22s and keeping the F-111's airworthy as Kopp proposes) --[[User:Nick Dowling|Nick Dowling]] 10:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)', 36 => ': Thanks for your help :) . From what i have read and what Kopp's saying it looks to me that buying the F-22s and keeping the F-111's is the best option for the RAAF, as the F-35 is outclassed by surrounding Countries Fighters. --Powderhound11 10:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)', 37 => ':: Aparently the RAAF considers the F-22 unsuitable for Australia's requirements as it is only effective in a single role (air superiority) while the F-35 is a much more capable attack aircraft. Kopp isn't held in high regard by much of the Australian defence community and while his articles are typically interesting they shouldn't be considered the last word on the topic. --[[User:Nick Dowling|Nick Dowling]] 10:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)', 38 => ':Yes i agree with you on that last point, although the issue is quiet intriguing. It's a pitty little is published about this issue. --Powderhound11, 17 October 2006', 39 => '::I just came across an interesting online news paper article stating that the US wonnt let us buy the F/A - 22, if true it could explain alot. see: http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/US-decisions-threaten-fighter-project/2006/08/04/1154198330441.html -- Powderhound11, 17 October 2006', 40 => ':::Yes, and the fact that the F-22 is too expensive. If it were for sale and a purchase was made by the RAAF, they won't be available in significant numbers to be effective. My rationale for the F-35 is 1)multi-role better for a middle power nation 2)upgrade and spares capability - the RAAF doesn't want to stuck with an aircraft that is only used by few or is too old (eg. F-111) 3)Asia-pacific region has a US bias - geopolitical reality. The procurement debate seems to be a clash of the multi-role vs air superiority paradigm. [[User:Htra0497|Htra0497]] 15:04, 11 November 2006 (AEST)', 41 => ':What does JSF stand for? (the article does not say) --AUser 14:30 11 December 2006 <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/218.214.46.95|218.214.46.95]] ([[User talk:218.214.46.95|talk]]) 03:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->', 42 => false, 43 => 'It stands for Joint Strike Fighter.', 44 => false, 45 => 'Acquisition of 24 F/A-18F Block II as an interim replacement for the F-111 was announced today. Text updated with link to media release. [[User:Dbromage|Dbromage]] 04:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)', 46 => false, 47 => '== Munitions ==', 48 => 'Could we get a list of the munitions utilised by RAAF aircarft? eg. JDAMs, GBUs, Harpoons etc [[User:Htra0497|Htra0497]] 15:04, 11 November 2006 (AEST)', 49 => false, 50 => '== Today's photo removal ==', 51 => 'Why were the aircraft photos removed by [[User:Imgi12]]? I think they added a lot to the page. [[User:Mlouns|Mlouns]] 07:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)', 52 => ': I presume it was becuase they were squishing the table of aircraft up. I've reduced the size of the photos, but they really need to be moved so the table works properly. --[[User:Nick Dowling|Nick Dowling]] 07:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)', 53 => false, 54 => ':: Would arranging them in a horizontal strip (Gallery fashion) make sense? [[User:Mlouns|Mlouns]] 16:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)', 55 => false, 56 => '== Deletion ==', 57 => 'Removed Robert Little's name from the list of WWI aces. He never served in any Australian formation. He served in the Royal Naval Air Service. --[[User:Catstroke|Catstroke]]', 58 => false, 59 => ': OK, that makes sense, sorry for the revert. I hope Little is mentioned in an appropriate list for that service? [[User:Mlouns|Mlouns]] 23:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)', 60 => false, 61 => ': Little listed in the Notable Personnel section of the RNAS article [[user:Catstroke|Catstroke]] ', 62 => false, 63 => '== F-22==', 64 => false, 65 => 'If anyone is still following the yes/no/maybe/wrong aeroplane/too expensive/unavailable debate in Canberra re the US denying F-22s for the RAAF then the following link should be an eye-opener. http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2006/10/retired-raaf-vicemarshal-abandon-f35-buy-f22s-updated/index.php ', 66 => '-- [[User:Catstroke|Catstroke]]', 67 => false, 68 => '== F-35 numbers ==', 69 => 'I read in Australian press that the USAAF has halved it's orders for the F-35 but have not been able to confirm this. I left a similar note in the F-35 talk pages but no one has replied. This is very serious for us. Does anyone know more? [[User:Brettr|Brettr]] 01:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)', 70 => ': None have actually been ordered. A final decision on placing an order will not be made until 2008. [[User:Dbromage|Dbromage]] 04:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)', 71 => false, 72 => '==Roundel==', 73 => 'I find the history of the RAAF Roundel pretty interesting and believe a paragraph on the subject to be worthy of inclusion. I intend to put it at the bottom of the page, and move the pictures of the Roundel. Any objections? [[User:RP Bravo|RP Bravo]] 12:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)', 74 => ':[[Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages|Go for it]] --[[User:Nick Dowling|Nick Dowling]] 08:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)', 75 => false, 76 => '== Userbox ==', 77 => 'I've prepared some userboxes for different Air Forces freaks - if you would like to use it, feel free to copy & paste following code in your Babel Tower or another place:', 78 => false, 79 => '<nowiki>{{User:Piotr Mikołajski/Userboxes/RAAFhv}}</nowiki>', 80 => false, 81 => 'or', 82 => false, 83 => '<nowiki>{{User:Piotr Mikołajski/Userboxes/RAAFlv}}</nowiki>', 84 => false, 85 => 'First one is [[User:Piotr Mikołajski/Userboxes/RAAFhv|high visibility]] roundel (and colours), second one is [[User:Piotr Mikołajski/Userboxes/RAAFlv|low-vis]] - see examples below. --[[User:Piotr Mikołajski|Piotr Mikołajski]] 07:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)', 86 => false, 87 => '{{User:Piotr Mikołajski/Userboxes/RAAFhv}} {{User:Piotr Mikołajski/Userboxes/RAAFlv}}', 88 => false, 89 => '<br/>', 90 => '== New Government ==', 91 => false, 92 => 'Does anyone know what Rudd is intending to do, regarding the finilisation of the purchase of the f-35, potentially switching to the f-22 and/or cancelling the super hornets?', 93 => 'This is in light of the F-22 article that says australia's (then) opposition is in favour of purchasing some F-22's. So basically, is Rudd going to put the pressure on to get some Raptors? <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/58.165.107.1|58.165.107.1]] ([[User talk:58.165.107.1|talk]]) 19:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->', 94 => false, 95 => ':I don't see any signs of the current Democrat Party-controlled US Congress changing the laws to allow exports of the F-22, which is currently illegal. That might change after the Federal Elections this year, depending upon who wins the White House, and what party controls the House and/or Senate, but it's unlikely to make a difference at this point. - [[User:BillCJ|BillCJ]] ([[User talk:BillCJ|talk]]) 19:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)', 96 => false, 97 => ':The new Government has ordered a full review of the RAAF's fighter replacement program. While it looks like the F/A-18Fs might get the chop, there's been no mention of F-22s from Labor for a while now - presumably for the reason Bill notes. See [http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/axe-to-fall-on-fighter-jets/2007/12/30/1198949675365.html] for a news report on this. --[[User:Nick Dowling|Nick Dowling]] ([[User talk:Nick Dowling|talk]]) 22:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)', 98 => false, 99 => false, 100 => 'Not true, a new edit in the f-22 article claims that the new defence minister is thinking of attempting to acquire the plane in lieu of the super hornets, with the possibility of even investigating russian built planes mentioned in the cited article, so i think the future equipment section should be edited, especially since the f-35 looks far from scheduled for delivery to the RAAF right now. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/58.165.107.1|58.165.107.1]] ([[User talk:58.165.107.1|talk]]) 14:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->', 101 => ':That text didn't reflect what the source actually said. The F-35 and F/A-18 purchase is under review and no decision has been taken to walk away from the F-35. I believe that Labor's policy is to operate a mix of F-22s and F-35s. --[[User:Nick Dowling|Nick Dowling]] ([[User talk:Nick Dowling|talk]]) 22:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)', 102 => false, 103 => 'Yes, but there is no concrete order for a set ammount of F-35's at the moment, so I find it hard to believe that they are scheduled for delivery. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/58.165.107.1|58.165.107.1]] ([[User talk:58.165.107.1|talk]]) 06:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->', 104 => false, 105 => '== New Current Aircraft Article ==', 106 => false, 107 => 'I have created a new article called [[Current Royal Australian Air Force Aircraft]], I also added a link to it under the "Current strength" section. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Jezstar|Jezstar]] ([[User talk:Jezstar|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jezstar|contribs]]) 03:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->', 108 => false, 109 => '==Incidents and accidents==', 110 => 'How come this article does not have a section like this, as articles about commercial airlines typically do? Certainly some of the events are notable. <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva"><font color="black"><font size="4">Socrates2008 (<font size=3>[[User talk:Socrates2008|Talk]]</font>)</font></font></font> 12:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)', 111 => ':Because no-one has written it yet. I don't think that any of the air force articles have such sections, however, and such a section may not be appropriate given that the RAAF has lost hundreds of aircraft in accidents and combat. Which notable incidents and accidents would you like to include? [[User:Nick Dowling|Nick Dowling]] ([[User talk:Nick Dowling|talk]]) 12:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)', 112 => false, 113 => false, 114 => 'Um, the biggest jet crash in Australia's history perhaps?', 115 => false, 116 => '== RAAF during Confrontation with Indonesia==', 117 => 'Although Confrontation was primarily a ground war, and the RAAFs role in it quite limited, does anyone else think it would be appropriate to include a paragraph on the RAAF during this conflict? I would add the material myself however I don't really have suitable knowledge or sources on this topic. [[User:Anotherclown|Anotherclown]] ([[User talk:Anotherclown|talk]]) 11:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)', 118 => ':Yes, though this kind of detail might be best placed in the [[History of the Royal Australian Air Force]] article... [[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]] ([[User talk:Nick-D|talk]]) 02:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)', 119 => '::Didn't the Canberra's go operational during this period?--[[User:Senor Freebie|Senor Freebie]] ([[User talk:Senor Freebie|talk]]) 05:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)', 120 => false, 121 => 'Sorry folks, just felt it needed to be pointed out that the introduction has an error or perhaps is unclear in meaning. It mentions the RAAF was formed in 1921, then claims it was engaged in World Wars I ( ~ and II). Although of coarse Australia was heavily involved in the first World War's air war, the Australian Air Force and later the ROYAL Australian Air Force was not.', 122 => false, 123 => 'Sorry to be a fly in the ointment, kindest regards', 124 => false, 125 => 'Walt [[User:Outofthewoods|Outofthewoods]] ([[User talk:Outofthewoods|talk]]) 01:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)', 126 => false, 127 => ':I don't see that it's unclear. The article states clearly "The RAAF began in March 1912 as the '''Australian Flying Corps''' and became a fully independent Air Force in March 1921", so when it says the RAAF took part in both world wars it was obviously as the AFC in WWI. --[[User:AussieLegend|AussieLegend]] ([[User talk:AussieLegend|talk]]) 10:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)', 128 => false, 129 => '== Motto question ==', 130 => 'Uninformed wikipedian beginner here, my apologies in advance: Isn't the motto more accurately translated as "Through Adversity to the Stars"? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/60.228.2.150|60.228.2.150]] ([[User talk:60.228.2.150|talk]]) 21:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->', 131 => false, 132 => ':As far as I'm aware, yes it is. When I first joined the RAAF in 1978 that was the English translation that was used officially but, for some reason, the current translation is what has been officially adopted now. --[[User:AussieLegend|AussieLegend]] ([[User talk:AussieLegend|talk]]) 22:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)', 133 => false, 134 => '== Boeing 707 ==', 135 => false, 136 => 'The article presently contains an image of a Boeing 707. See [[Royal Australian Air Force#Service since 1945|HERE]]. I understand that the last RAAF 707 was retired in 2008. To avoid conveying a misleading impression about the current status of the 707, I suggest an alternative image is used, or the caption changed to indicate the historical nature of the photograph. [[User:Dolphin51|Dolphin51]] ([[User talk:Dolphin51|talk]]) 06:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)', 137 => ':Great idea - I've replaced it with a more interesting photo [[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]] ([[User talk:Nick-D|talk]]) 07:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)', 138 => false, 139 => '== World's second oldest air force? ==', 140 => false, 141 => 'The South African Air Force also claims to be the second oldest air force in the world. Which one is it?', 142 => '[[Special:Contributions/121.216.18.128|121.216.18.128]] ([[User talk:121.216.18.128|talk]]) 09:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)', 143 => ':It is difficult to find accurate information on that matter.', 144 => '*The RAAF website says October 22, 1912 for the date of official approval. [http://www.raaf.gov.au/history/ww1.aspx]', 145 => '*This unofficial SAAF run website says 1913 [http://www.saairforce.co.za/the-airforce/history/saaf/south-africa-aviation-corps]', 146 => '*The SAAF website doesn't specify an official establishment date, instead it refers to a provision for the formation of the South African Aviation Corps in 1912 [http://www.af.mil.za/about_us/history.html#2]', 147 => 'If you are referring to the date of formation as an air force. SAAF was formed on 1 February 1920. RAAF was formed on 31 March 1921.', 148 => 'So, it's hard to say. I think this subject requires more research and investigation. [[User:SCΛRECROW|<b><font color="black">SCΛRECROW</font></b>]]^{[[User talk:SCΛRECROW|<font color="#007400">CrossCom</font>]]} 10:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)', 149 => false, 150 => ':Honestly - the lead was highly POV (coming directly from an RAAF site quite understandably)- I have rewritten it as:', 151 => ':* The AFC and RAAF were two different services, although the second can accurately be described as continuing the role and traditions of the first. ', 152 => ':* "Air force" in the sense of an "organised force of military aircraft" - there were obviously any number of these during WWI - and prior to 1912 for that matter. The German and French air forces (in this sense) date from 1910!', 153 => ':* "Air Force" in the sense of a separate service with no connection with the army or navy - the RAF and the SAAF at least, are both older, and I suspect so are some other services - in any case the article mentioned 1912 in this regard - which would have predated the formation of the RAF (in 1918) by 6 years.', 154 => false, 155 => ':Until somebody comes up with some real research on this matter (which obviously needs to look outside the British Empire!! I think the new lead is fair enough - and at least more encyclopedic than the old one. ', 156 => ':--[[User:Soundofmusicals|Soundofmusicals]] ([[User talk:Soundofmusicals|talk]]) 11:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)', 157 => false, 158 => 'the thing is when you looking into the RAAF history is that it was once know by at least 3 different names the AFC, AAF, RAAF and a few before others the 31 march 21' (origanaly the 1st was planned but they did't want to be knowen as a joke)was when the AAF was formed the prefix royal wasent added until AUG that year', 159 => '"Final approval to establish the Australian Flying Corps was promulgated in Military Order No.570 on 22 October 1912, with orders placed for two B.E.2a, two Deperdussin and a Bristol Boxkite to equip the new air arm"<span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/124.182.117.114|124.182.117.114]] ([[User talk:124.182.117.114|talk]]) 10:33, 15 August 2010 </span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP2 -->', 160 => ':Whilst the AFC was formed prior to World War I, it was raised as a Corps of the Australian Army, not as an independant service. [[User:AusTerrapin|AusTerrapin]] ([[User talk:AusTerrapin|talk]]) 15:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)', 161 => false, 162 => '== F-111's? ==', 163 => false, 164 => 'Just wandering should not the F-111 be given some more information regarding the problems and difficulties faced by the air force. From what I know these air craft are still in hangar's/limited use and should therefore be listed as still being actively used or at the very least be referred to as F-111(to be phased out).', 165 => false, 166 => 'Thanks in advance [[User:AussieSkeptic82|AussieSkeptic82]] ([[User talk:AussieSkeptic82|talk]]) 16:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)', 167 => false, 168 => 'F-111 final flight was 3 December, they will never fly again. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Mrteeve|Mrteeve]] ([[User talk:Mrteeve|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Mrteeve|contribs]]) 23:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->', 169 => false, 170 => '== Procurement review section removed ==', 171 => false, 172 => 'I've just [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Royal_Australian_Air_Force&action=historysubmit&diff=420124901&oldid=420118097 removed] the 'Procurement review' section as the topic it covers (the 2007-2008 review of whether to go ahead with the F/A-18Fs and F-35s) is now outdated as the review endorsed these purchases and they've since gone ahead (albeit partially in the case of the F-35). [[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]] ([[User talk:Nick-D|talk]]) 10:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)', 173 => false, 174 => '==C-130J==', 175 => 'in this model it cannot take an Australian tank (bushmaster i think) due to the cargo door not opening upwards', 176 => 'this is different to the last model (C-123H) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/124.189.148.38|124.189.148.38]] ([[User talk:124.189.148.38|talk]]) 06:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->', 177 => false, 178 => '== Uniform Colour ==', 179 => false, 180 => 'Midnight Blue has a lot more white in it and is lighter than Navy Blue. Navy Blue is very close to black. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/117.120.18.135|117.120.18.135]] ([[User talk:117.120.18.135|talk]]) 06:37, 27 September 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->', 181 => false, 182 => '== Official RAAF Colours ==', 183 => false, 184 => 'The US Air Force included their official colours on their wiki page, like this:', 185 => '|colors= [[Ultramarine|Ultramarine Blue]] and [[Gold (color)#Yellow|Air Force Yellow]]<ref name="AFcolors">{{cite web|url=http://www.lackland.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-070324-002.pdf |title=The Air Force Flag|date=24 March 2007 |work=Air Force Historical Research Agency |publisher=United States Air Force |accessdate=27 March 2009}}</ref> {{Color box|#120a8f}}{{Color box|#FFDF00}}', 186 => 'and I was wondering if the RAAF had official colours as well? [[User:Brandon.hargraves|Brandon.hargraves]] ([[User talk:Brandon.hargraves|talk]]) 05:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC)', 187 => false, 188 => false, 189 => '== RAAF Heron ==', 190 => 'Hello, I was wondering what picture we can use in the current aircraft table? I uploaded http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:RAAF_IAI_Heron_on_the_ground.jpg because there weren't any RAAF Herons on wikipedia, but apparently there is an obtainable free version of the RAAF Heron we can use. If somebody could aid me in my search for a free image of a '''RAAF''' Heron, then that would be greatly appreciated. If we cannot find an alternative, will we be able to use http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:IAI_Heron_1_in_flight_2.JPEG? It is in use by the US however. [[User:Brandon.hargraves|Brandon.hargraves]] ([[User talk:Brandon.hargraves|talk]]) 05:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)', 191 => ':Unless the RAAF has been showing off its single-Australia based Heron at airshows (which I've never seen any indication of in the Aviation press) I really doubt that a free alternative for that photo exists. The other two Herons are permanently deployed to Afghanistan. I've removed the tag from that image as it didn't make much sense. [[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]] ([[User talk:Nick-D|talk]]) 05:49, 8 December 2012 (UTC)', 192 => '::Actually, it seems that the RAAF put the thing on display last year: [http://www.airliners.net/photo/Australia---Air/Israel-Aircraft-Industries/1917193/&sid=c85929b20d3c2f0e7cb7b8849ceaab38]. [[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]] ([[User talk:Nick-D|talk]]) 10:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)', 193 => false, 194 => '== Engagements ==', 195 => 'Doesn't Vietnam count as an "Engagement"? <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Lexysexy|Lexysexy]] ([[User talk:Lexysexy|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Lexysexy|contribs]]) 03:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->', 196 => ': Indeed, seems to be an oversight to me. I've added it now to the infobox. BTW I've removed Sudan from the infobox as RAAF involvement (indeed ADF involvement) is minor and doesn't even rate a mention in the article. [[User:Anotherclown|Anotherclown]] ([[User talk:Anotherclown|talk]]) 05:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)' ]