Chief of Joint Operations Vice Admiral David Johnston and Air Commodore 'Joe' Vincent Iervasi, deliver the second briefing in the Australia room at the Australian Defence Offices in Russell, Canberra.

DAVID JOHNSTON:

Ladies and gentlemen good morning and welcome to the further operational update, which CDF indicated that we will provide to you on an as required basis to keep you as informed as we can of changes and updates in the operational environment, particularly in Iraq. At the present, slightly different this week to last week, where CDF clearly hosted it. I have with me today Air Commodore Joe Iervasi. Joe leads on my behalf within the operations command out of Bungendore, the way Australia conducts air operations. So not just limited to Iraq, but all the other places where we deploy air capabilities, Joe is the commander of many of those activities for me.

I will clearly get to Iraq and provide you an update there, but before I did I thought I'd just refresh that there are a number of activities that operationally we are contributing to at the moment. We continue to have up to 400 people deployed in Afghanistan; who are doing important work in the advise mission that we are contributing there. HMAS Toowoomba is the Anzac-class frigate that is deployed in the Middle East region, and is back out at sea, conducted maritime security operations. You would recall that quite recently she had a very significant narcotic interdiction of over 5500 kilos of narcotic, and achieving quite a substantial effect in the full range of missions that she performs.

The HMAS Choules sailed from Sydney this week. And one of our major activities that we have in the latter part of this month is Operation Render Safe, which is an activity that we conduct throughout the South West Pacific associated with the removal of explosive remnants of war - largely World War Two ammunition that was left behind after that conflict. But the next activity that we have is going to be conducted in Bougainville, and we have ADF personnel starting to arrive in Bougainville now to set ourselves up for that activity, and Choules will arrive there later this month to start that.

And then to Iraq. And what I'll do is give you a bit of a summary of a roll-up of where we are, and then very happy to take your questions at the end. Over the course of this week our air operations in Iraq in particular have surged. The reason that we have done that is to enable a continued presence over Iraq while permitting other coalition forces to intensify their efforts in Syria. So we have been flying more missions than we ordinarily would so that the US and other coalition partners in particular can support particularly Kobani. And I will come to that.

Our missions then have involved at least one pair of Super Hornets, often over the last few days two pairs of Super Hornets, that have been flying what remain quite long missions in the order of eight to ten hours for them to achieve the time that we aim for them to have over the ground in Iraq, supported by the E-7, the Airborne Earlier Warning and Control aircraft, and the KC-30. So if I look at what we have flown since our aircraft arrived in the Middle East and just give you some of that - those statistics. The Super Hornets have flown 39 sorties - and this is as of yesterday, we had further missions last night - they've flown 39 sorties, accruing 276 flying hours. A sortie is one aircraft in a mission. Over the same period the air-to-air refueler, the KC-30, has flown 14 air-to-air missions, and provided over a million pounds of fuel to coalition aircraft - predominantly the Australian Super Hornets but also French Rafale fighter aircraft. And just as an indicator for you, a single mission by a Super Hornet could require it to refuel up to four times in a single flight there and back to their operating base.

The E-7 Wedgetail aircraft has flown 11 missions, accruing 126 flying hours. And that aircraft continues to provide a very important role of managing airspace, deconflicting aircraft movements, reporting and supporting back to the Combined Air Operations Centre to ensure that the various coalition aircraft are deconflicted with each other.

As we announced late last week, on 8 October, our Super Hornets struck an ISIL facility, which through subsequent battle damage assessment we have confirmed was destroyed, and a number of ISIL members were killed in that attack. Earlier this week we had two pairs of Super Hornets attacked an ISIL military equipment and facilities in northern Iraq, also using their 500lb bombs, and our indication is from that attack that they were also successful; that was associated with ISIL equipment, ISIL facilities, and some support to troops that were on the ground.

Our Special Operations Task Group remains postured in the Middle East. The negotiations on the legal protections are continuing and are making progress. That group is ready to deploy once we have the authority to do so. We've supplemented their capabilities with some additional protected mobility vehicles that will be particularly useful against the improvised explosive device threat; but that group is largely prepared, they're trained, they're ready to go. Their mission, as we have previously briefed, is around providing support at divisional headquarters, brigade headquarters, and down to the battalion level. [Coughs] Excuse me.

You've also seen the US have announced the name of their operation and the chiefs of defence conference, that Air Chief Marshall Binskin advised you of last week, has occurred over the last few days. We're waiting for the Chief to return. But Inherent Resolve is what the US is calling their mission. They've grouped together a coalition of over 60 nations who are contributing to that.

What we've seen - and just as a general assessment for you - airstrikes have continued to have an impact on the ground, and the comment I'd offer you is what airstrikes offer apart from a direct action on top of ISIL facilities or degrading their capabilities, they have a much broader impact around morale, the confidence and the notion of invincibility that ISIL fighters may have, but the broad target set also gives us opportunities to have an impact on their access to revenue. You might be aware some of the targets have included a mobile oil refinery, which ISIL is using to be able to generate revenue; some of the airstrike activity by the coalition are destroying those facilities.

So when we look at the air campaign, there is certainly an element which is supporting troops on the ground, some of it is atriding the capability of ISIL to be able to move freely, to resupply their people, and to provide that support to them as they are moving. But the contribution is broader than that; is it about undermining confidence, undermining their revenue streams, and having a much broader impact across that.

I'll talk just briefly to Kobani, where the US and coalition airstrikes have certainly intensified over the course of this week, and you will have seen that in a number of reporting. The observation I'd give you is that ISIL are clearly very determined around this objective, but they are suffering the loss of hundreds of lives in seeking to achieve it. So while the outcome in Kobani is uncertain, even overnight there have been gains by the Kurdish forces within the town, it is uncertain what the outcome will be. The coalition is doing a significant amount to try to provide that support in particular from the air, but ISIL are expending a lot of forces in trying to achieve this objective, which is atriding what they have available to them.

The last comment I'd make before we move to questions is that we remain, and continue to be, available around our provision of humanitarian support. You recall last week I spoke that we had provided a number of air-drop missions. There hasn't been a requirement for that over the last week since I updated you, but we remain available and postured to provide that capability, should it be required.

I'm happy to take any questions.

QUESTION:

Sir, what's the risk, or what's your assessment of the risk to Baghdad Airport and Bagdad city because we're hearing a lot about the potential for the airport to be under threat.

DAVID JOHNSTON:

It has been an area that has been broadly under threat for some time, and I know - I saw some commentary I think overnight that - around the DFAT travel advisory. What I'd point out is that the travel advisory of people - Australians recommended to leave Iraq has actually been in place since May. So it hasn't changed over that time, it's been fairly consistent to it. That Bagdad environment has been fragile for some time, but there is significant forces - particularly Iraqi forces - that are postured around the environment in Bagdad to ensure it is secure. The US has significant capabilities there to provide support where it's required, so from our perspective, we haven't seen a substantive change over time. There are areas, particularly out in Western Baghdad where, on a day by day basis, it changes. ISIL make some advances, the Iraqi Security forces can push them back on the next day. So the environment is fluid, but there has been no substantial change in the environment in Baghdad over the last few months.

QUESTION:

The distinction though, with the statement yesterday, was that [indistinct] you'd said: while Baghdad and [indistinct] Airports remain open; which indicates or suggests that the Government thinks there is at least a chance that the airports may close, or perhaps be overtaken by us; is that a possibility?

DAVID JOHNSTON:

I think that is unlikely. So, the fact there are still commercial aircraft flying into Baghdad International Airport is an indication that commercial companies still think that it's viable and they're able to operate there, so our view of the circumstances on the ground, while they are dynamic, Baghdad looks secure.

QUESTION:

Could I just clarify exactly air strikes we've actually carried out now, and sorry, I didn't understand; were you saying that we actually carried out the strikes on the mobile oil refinery or was that Coalition aircraft?

DAVID JOHNSTON:

My comment about the mobile oil refinery; there are Coalition strikes against them, they haven't been a target yet that we have struck. I don't intend to be explicit either, in terms of the timing or the number of strikes, but what I did want to convey to you is that we have now done multiple strikes over a number of nights.

QUESTION:

And notwithstanding that, can you tell us how many of the 39 Hornet sorties have involved use of weaponry?

DAVID JOHNSTON:

I don't intend to give that amount of detail, but it has been more than one now, so - I will continue to provide an indication to you of what we're striking and the type of tempo with it, but over the course of since we last conducted the brief last Tuesday, it has now been multiple strikes.

QUESTION:

Admiral, so there's - [indistinct] you've mentioned there was one before and then, so there's - this is, you've mentioned the second one, so there's now been two?

DAVID JOHNSTON:

There's at least two, yes.

QUESTION:

At least two? Or…

DAVID JOHNSTON:

Yes.

QUESTION:

Not specifically just two?

DAVID JOHNSTON:

I'm remaining vague on that, hence my language. There's at least two, but…

QUESTION:

You mentioned 39 sorties as of yesterday, but you said there were some overnight, so…

DAVID JOHNSTON:

So we did fly missions overnight, they involved four Super Hornets and supporting aircraft. There were no targets struck overnight.

QUESTION:

It's interesting to hear you say that we've stepped up activity in the last week to allow the US to focus on Kobane and therefore on Syria. Whilst we're not directly involved in the Syrian side of the conflict, it's obviously fair to conclude that Australia's contribution is very much allowing the US effort in Syria to step up.

DAVID JOHNSTON:

We are part of a coalition effort as you're aware. Other countries do have the authority to be able to operate in Syria, so what we have provided by being able to provide more missions than we would otherwise have planned to, that there has been spare capacity that has been able to then be devoted towards the conflict in Syria.

QUESTION:

So the US is relying on us to be able to step up its effort inside Syria?

DAVID JOHNSTON:

It has been part of making sure that we continue to play and important effect in Iraq and, where there's capacity, to be able then to apply that as an additional outcome in Syria. That's true.

QUESTION:

And could you - sorry - just clarify: how many missions altogether now? You said 39 and then a couple…

DAVID JOHNSTON:

My numbers were up until yesterday, so - but this morning, our aircraft have only just returned in the early hours of this morning, so we have flown an additional four Hornet flights through last night. So if you add 39 sorties up until yesterday, add four more to there, up to 43.

QUESTION:

Admiral, when the CDF spoke to us, he mentioned that your pilots have played the red card very early on. How frequently have they had to do that in the course of these?

DAVID JOHNSTON:

There's been - and in part - and I'll offer Joe the chance to talk through it, perhaps just to give you an understanding, and I know there was a lot of interest in terms of the red card and how we use it. In general though, the way we manage our missions, the planners inside the Command Air Operations Centre know what targets are authorised an Australian target, so that is part of the planning process where we work through, with other nations, of: what can each nation do? What's an appropriate target for that particular nation within the authorities available to it? So the circumstances under which the so-called red card or where during the conduct of a mission, or otherwise, we would deny the ability to strike, are infrequent.
Vinnie, did you wish to add any further comment to that?

VINCENT IERVASI:

The only addition, I would say that there's been no air crew up to this particular point that has felt necessary to throw the red card down. The only time that we have applied a red card is actually prior to the allocation in a particular mission itself. So it hasn't - you may recall there was an instance back in 2003 that's been well reported, about one of our pilots chose to cease an attack because in his view it ceased to be a military objective that fitted within his delegated authorities and rules of engagement. We haven't seen that circumstance so far.

QUESTION:

Sorry, but CDF do tell us that there have been one on - I think the first mission. So you haven't seen anything subsequent to that, or..?

DAVID JOHNSTON:

To clarify, the circumstances of that was that the cessation of the attack wasn't called by the aircraft, it was called by our people back in the operational headquarters, who determined that it now exceeded our risk parameters. So that's where the view of - we have a number of checks and balances in place right through the system, right up to the air crew making that determination. On that particular occasion, the determination not to proceed was made not in the aircraft but on the ground.

QUESTION:

The CDF did say it was the last briefing, it was the crew involved in that decision as well.

DAVID JOHNSTON:

The crew were participating in it, so they're giving feedback on what they're seeing. They have the sense and capability to understand what's moving, what's changing and providing that advice back into including our people that are inside the air operation centre.

QUESTION:

So it hasn't been used at all again, by anyone?

DAVID JOHNSTON:

No it hasn't. No. Not by Australians. I can't comment…

QUESTION: [Indistinct]

DAVID JOHNSTON:

No, we haven't been in that situation again.

QUESTION:

Admiral, how many ISIL fighters were killed in the first air strike?

DAVID JOHNSTON:

In the first air strike? It was a number. There were multiple fighters there.

QUESTION:

Are you saying…

DAVID JOHNSTON:

No and the reason why I'm not being overly detailed - we do know ISIL has a very aggressive propaganda campaign. The more that we provide in terms of location, the dates, they can exploit that information, including back against us. So we're just being very cautious and as much as I want to be as informative with you as I can, I'm avoiding putting ourselves in a position where that information can be exploited and used back against us.

QUESTION:

I asked this question last time, and I'll ask it again: what can you - what assessment can you give us about the situation in Kobane? I know we're not in Syria, but you're obviously involved in that action directly. How bad is it in Kobane?

DAVID JOHNSTON:

It is serious and I think some of the - there was significant advances that were made by ISIL over the last few days. The increased tempo in air strikes has slowed that again and the reporting we've seen that there are areas where the Kurds have pushed back in the city and recovered some territory, but it is fragile and it's uncertain. So, the outcome is not clear in Kobane. There is some ground being made but it is a day by day proposition at the moment.

QUESTION:

Vice Admiral, our special forces have been sidelined for a long time. It's been - presumably, they've got an important role to do once they get in there [indistinct] important once they're in there. Their absence so far is having a negative impact. Could you tell me how much urgency you guys are feeling, how much frustration you're feeling about the fact they're not getting there despite all our best efforts?

DAVID JOHNSTON:

Despite - special operations team are ready to go and they're ready to get in, contribute and assist the Iraqi security forces but we understand that the negotiations need to continue. Getting the circumstances by which they deploy in there and the legal provisions around it are important and that's just what we're waiting for. So - we're aware the Government in Iraq still hasn't been able to appoint a defence minister yet or a minister of interior. So, they have issues that they are contending with, this is one of them. We're working with them to achieve the right outcomes as quickly as we can and we're ready to go once they give us that authority.

QUESTION:

[Speaking over] Do you have [indistinct]?

DAVID JOHNSTON:

It will depend. So it - generally we expect we will be Iraqi special operations forces but until we get in there and the timing is clear which particular team - and it may even change during the deployment that depending on what the various units are doing that we could partner with multiple units and the nature of units may change during the course of the deployment.

QUESTION:

Do you have any sort of timeframe on when you think they might get in at this stage or…

DAVID JOHNSTON:

We're hoping that it stays but we just are uncertain. So, we're ready and as soon as we get that authority we will [indistinct].

QUESTION:

Just to clarify, sorry, is it primarily from your understanding, a bureaucratic holdup because of the situation in the Government in Baghdad or are there military points of difference that need to be negotiated because the Prime Minister's told us we're looking for the same kind of arrangement that the United States has forged to do the same kind of job. Is there a military thing that's to be resolved?

DAVID JOHNSTON:

It's not a military issue that I'm aware of, I think it's just taking time to work through the Iraqi system.

QUESTION:

Admiral, Peter [indistinct] said that's [indistinct] that may never happen. Firstly, do you - what's your reaction to that because the fact that the [indistinct] to our government is in disarray and [indistinct] dysfunctional and also we made a commitment to send in advisors about a month ago or thereabouts, the situation has dramatically changed between then and now. Is that commitment now irrelevant? I mean, does the Iraqi Government need far more than advisors when they've got ISIS on the outskirts of that?

DAVID JOHNSTON:

I'm confident that we will get in there and I am confident that we will make a useful contribution. So, I don't think the situation has changed as dramatically as you've suggested it but what has changed, if anything, was that we saw ISIL over a number of months make a - very rapid progress from the Syrian border down into Iraq. That's clearly slowed. So, that if the situation is changing in many areas, it's in favour of the Iraqi security forces. It's at - there are areas where that's still highly contested but we will get in there, I expect, and we will make a very useful contribution when we do so.

QUESTION:

Just on the ISIL casualties from the Australian air strikes, you said on that first one there were multiple, on - you said that at least two strikes have taken place. Were there other occasions where there were casualties?

DAVID JOHNSTON:

There were. There were casualties associated with the strikes that we had performed.

QUESTION:

[Indistinct] at least two?

DAVID JOHNSTON:

Yes.

QUESTION:

And confirming those casualties, how is that done? I mean, you don't [indistinct] on the ground. So, are there images back in the headquarters of the deceased on the ground that are able to confirm - how do you confirm that?

DAVID JOHNSTON:

That - there are various sources, particularly where there may be unmanned aerial vehicles that are often operating with the strike in providing that broader situational awareness. So, there are a number of sources that are available that provide us the ability to do the battle damage assessment after the strike mission has occurred and to gain a sense of, not only the affect of this on whatever the particular target, whether there are any other casualties associated with it.

QUESTION:

Do you have any update on the capability of the ISIL forces in terms of surface to air? It was a bit unclear last time, is it still unclear?

DAVID JOHNSTON:

It is unclear but I think the comments that the CDF made to you last time - we're aware - the predominant capabilities they have are the MANPADS capabilities and some air to air artillery. I've seen nothing that would suggest that's changed, certainly over the last week. So, that's our view of it. We've got a pretty clear understanding of the risks to our aircraft and the missions associated with that and we're well placed to manage those.

QUESTION:

Have they been fired on at all? Are they low enough to be fired on?

DAVID JOHNSTON:

No. Sorry…

QUESTION:

Sorry, can you just explain, why don't you want to say how many of the missions actually involve strikes?

DAVID JOHNSTON:

Only because the - depending on the circumstances - and it will change partly week by week if they're - I give enough information that you can align particular days with the strikes and the outcome. That does feed in to that concern of how that information may be used.

QUESTION:

But the Americans are announcing what they're doing…

DAVID JOHNSTON:

Not in that granular terms. So, they're, similarly, doing a broad role up. I think if you look at the CENTCOM reporting it - it's doesn't indicate the nation, it indicates the type of targets that are being struck. So, I don't think it's dissimilar to the approach that we're taking.

QUESTION:

Just on the release [indistinct] material it seems to us, at least, that the - that you have been very protective of video material from your aircraft strikes. Perhaps that can't be physically what you're telling us. We do notice that the US seems from here are not nearly as protective. Is there a reason why our forces need to be more guarded with their release of video material or perhaps is it that you don't gather as much of that material as the US does?

DAVID JOHNSTON:

We're - what I'd suggest here, the US has been equally discriminating in the materials. So, it conducts many more strikes than we do, simply by the number of aircraft that are there. They don't release a great deal of the video imagery that they obtain so they similarly take a very cautious approach with it. The Australian practice has been consistent to the way we conducted operations in 2003. I think you've seen CDF made the comments over last weekend that there are people dying, the video does show that. We don't seek to glorify war. He used the expression it's not a video game. So, it is serious - the material can be used and we don't - it is our approach that we don't release it.

QUESTION:

You won't release it, full stop? That's your approach?

DAVID JOHNSTON:

The circumstances in which we do would be very limited.

QUESTION:

Which would make you release it on a more rare basis than the United States, surely?

DAVID JOHNSTON:

Perhaps, but that is our national approach to it.

QUESTION:

Can I just ask you about Anbar Province? The CDF said last week that air strikes were having the effect that the - IS couldn't move around en masse. There were some reports yesterday that Islamic State were amassing tanks and artillery [indistinct] to take the town in Anbar Province. Is that your understanding of that sort of - what's going on at the moment [indistinct]?

DAVID JOHNSTON:

There has been additional objectives or - ISIL's forces it would appear, moving in to that area. Right throughout the western approaches to Baghdad which we've known for some time has been a key approach corridor that they've been seeking to exploit. So, that - the force changes do occur. The Iraqi security forces are equally providing additional capability out to the western side of Baghdad. So, I think that we're seeing part of that movement of forces and counter movement occurring in there in part to make sure that that approach to Baghdad is secure.

QUESTION:

So, how are they able to move tanks and heavy artillery around there if there are air strikes?

DAVID JOHNSTON:

They are - there is air capability over Iraq but it's being dispersed over a range of areas, I mentioned particularly because Syria - the strikes back in to Syria have been busy during the week. So the air apportionment is around providing the best effect all over the various two locations where the forces are operating. So, if that means at times, some capabilities can move then occasions that occurs but the ability to mass force is where the limitation is. So, if it is a one or a two - that's different to being able to get a sizeable force together which clearly then becomes a higher priority target and attracts the resources associated with that.

QUESTION:

All this imagery distribution, can you explain to us why we have a different national approach than our coalition partners?

DAVID JOHNSTON:

I don't think it is that substantively different. It's - the sheer number of US strikes means that there is a proportionality element in there. I think all countries have a generally cautious view on the release of that imagery and we're just part of it…

QUESTION:

[Speaking over] [Indistinct]…

DAVID JOHNSTON:

…so, I don't think we're that different.

QUESTION:

…though, different national approach.

DAVID JOHNSTON:

But I don't think it's that different. So, we are cautious with it for, in part, the reasons that I explained but it has been a view that we have held for some time.

QUESTION:

[Indistinct] with respect sir, cautious - blanket, no(*), is more than cautious. A blanket no(*) is a blanket no(*).

DAVID JOHNSTON:

But what - I said there would be limited circumstances by which we would release it and that…

QUESTION:

[Speaking over] [Indistinct] blanket no(*), fairness to you, there are circumstances…

DAVID JOHNSTON:

And there might be but they would be limited.

COMPERE:

Just a couple more questions ladies and gentlemen please. [Pause] If there are any more questions.
[Laughter]

COMPERE:

Alright. Well we might be [indistinct] then. Thank you very much.

DAVID JOHNSTON:

Thank you, thanks for joining us.

<END>