Airborne Aircrew

Magic... I can blame someone else...

Thanks Wholigan...

SASless

Nay Lad....they are so gauche these days...now a quad-.50 cal....that's cool!

Modern Elmo

So, are any of you aware of a contact point in the RAF, or other AF involved in Libya, who may be able to assist me in identifying these anomalous data points? I know they're explosions, but it would be useful to have an source confirm this.

How do you know that those data points are explosions? Please tell us, Mr. Scientist. Could you please describe these data points? What sort of sensors does your satellite have?

And if you're sure that they are explosions, why do you need a source to confirm what you already know?

Rector16

Could it be that he's not a scientist? Is there just an outside possibility that someone asking interesting questions on a rumour site is actually a JOURNALIST???? I think that this counts as a valid technique in Journo-school; although he might end up publishing the truth (which clearly isn't!).

BEWARE geeks bearing gifts.......

dead_pan

I can semi-vouch for simonpro. He has recently been plying his trade on JB - definitely a geek not a journo.

Still, a strange request I agree. I'm sure most EO satellites worth their salt can detect explosions on the ground if they happen to be looking in the right direction at the right time.

Nemrytter

Thanks to the people who provided me with information, you've been very helpful.

Modern Elmo and Rector, I'm not a journo and I'm not trying to cause problems. I'm simply interested in the results we're getting from our sensor. As I said before, if you want more details then PM me. I need a confirmation source because saying "They're explosions" carries a lot less weight than saying "They're explosions, as can be confirmed by comparing to this other information that we've been given."

Also, dead pan, time and place is the problem. We operate one of only a few civilian satellites that are always in the right time and place, all other sats would need a substantial amount of luck to detect anything.
Now I don't want to derail this thread, so if anyone has some helpful info/complaints/insults then PM me.

Mike7777777

If there are no defined political objectives then it's not possible to develop meaningful strategies, recent examples being Afghanistan and Iraq. I don't think there was any doubt that the no fly zone would be achieved swiftly, but then what? NATO troops on the ground?

outhouse

Hi, am I correct in understanding that NATO will hit either side if they (NATO) consider that civilians are at risk. After viewing the developments over the last few weeks and the changes recently in the way the air activities are conducted, I feel more convinced every day that it's a lost cause and the sooner we bail out the better.*
At the onset it seemed a quick use of a seemingly open door agreement to suppress the government ground forces, allowing the rebels to advance quickly, gain an advantage, close on the primary Eastern cities and see more defections from government forces. After this a rebel force with a greater trained and equipped forces would have been able to stabilise and allow a political posturing from a position of strength.

So what went wrong, the politics took over. NATO full control and expected reduction in air activity, posturing and incision at a time when the rebel force was at it's most exposed position, *counter attack by a re vitalised government force and total retreat and confusion.*

So I guess it's all ending up in the way they want, confusion stalemate and a large bill to top up the bunkers with some new toys to use next time. (did hear on the gv that a rather well off gulf state was paying the bill, chance to update inventory then?)

Lonewolf_50

I read this in the papers and am now puzzled.

It used to be, back when I was in a NATO organization, that all NATO nations had to vote "yes" to undertake military action.

If Turkey, Germany, and Poland voted NO, then the Alliance cannot task Admiral Locklear (Joint Forces Naples) and his subordinate commands with armed action.

The news may have it wrong, but more troubling to me is: has NATO changed its basic rulse?

TEEEJ

RAF Typhoon - Libya


TJ

Whenurhappy

Supporting the NATO mission politically is different from supporting the mission militarily. Same happend with ALLIED FORCE in 1999 (Kosovo/Serbia) - some NATO members opposed it, but did not 'break silence' but would not commit forces either (eg Greece).

There is no voting system within the North Atlantic Council, just concensus. Inasmuch as it is fun to have a pop at NATO, getting 28 Countries to agree politcally to this mission is frankly astounding. Almost as astounding as getting the UNSCR to agree such a robust resolution (UNSCR 1973). Of course Russia and Chuina abstained. Ongoing politcal turmoil in North Africa is a great for the gas business - the Russian gas business.

dead_pan

I did read this too way back at the beginning of the NFZ operation, but have seen no mention anywhere since. Mind you, anyone who has dealt with the Gulf states will tell you, it takes an eternity for a promise to materialise into hard cash.

The Qataris do seem intent on re-branding themselves as the reforming moderates of the Arab world (or at least the financiers of), even attempting to dictate terms to the Yemeni regime.

Pontius Navigator

The only country with assets like this is USA of course (AFAIK) and I suspect that there is no air supremacy over Misurata so there would be risk to the C130.

peterperfect

Ref: NO FLY ZONE.
Q: When it comes to a point that violent conflict is over, yet the NFZ is still in place covering the while of the Libyan FIR, how does say, a humanitarian charter by UN or an NGO to say Benghazi get to enter the airspace without being classified a 'hostile' target ? Who do they apply to and how ? The same question goes for offshore helicopter flights to rigs in the Med but inside the FIR. Who does the request chit go to ? pp.

Pontius Navigator

The short answer as to who can fly in the NFZ would appear to be - file a flight plan.

The longer answer would appear to be:

“4. Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in cooperation with the Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory, and requests the Member States concerned to inform the Secretary-General immediately of the measures they take pursuant to the authorization conferred by this paragraph which shall be immediately reported to the Security Council;

“5. Recognizes the important role of the League of Arab States in matters relating to the maintenance of international peace and security in the region, and bearing in mind Chapter VIII of the Charter of the United Nations, requests the Member States of the League of Arab States to cooperate with other Member States in the implementation of paragraph 4;

“No-fly zone

“6. Decides to establish a ban on all flights in the airspace of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya in order to help protect civilians;


“7. Decides further that the ban imposed by paragraph 6 shall not apply to flights whose sole purpose is humanitarian, such as delivering or facilitating the delivery of assistance, including medical supplies, food, humanitarian workers and related assistance, or evacuating foreign nationals from the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, nor shall it apply to flights authorised by paragraphs 4 or 8, nor other flights which are deemed necessary by States acting under the authorization conferred in paragraph 8 to be for the benefit of the Libyan people, and that these flights shall be coordinated with any mechanism established under paragraph 8;

“8. Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General and the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, to take all necessary measures to enforce compliance with the ban on flights imposed by paragraph 6 above, as necessary, and requests the States concerned in cooperation with the League of Arab States to coordinate closely with the Secretary General on the measures they are taking to implement this ban, including by establishing an appropriate mechanism for implementing the provisions of paragraphs 6 and 7 above,

A. EUROCONTROL actions following UN Security Council resolution on Libya | EUROCONTROL

Therefore only those flights which are exempted from the ban, in accordance with the resolution, will be permitted to operate.

draken55

"Downing Street said Britain would be sending the rebels 1,000 sets of body armour in "non-lethal" aid from surplus UK defence stocks, in addition to the 100 satellite phones already supplied."

How does this tie in with the oft quoted lack of body armour for British troops in Afghanistan? Who will advise on the use of such equipment? The "mission creep" continues.

Pontius Navigator

But who said the surplus kit was bullet proof?

Airborne Aircrew

It'll probably be the old NI Flak Jackets... Marginal against low velocity... Like butter against high velocity...

Mike7777777

With the benefit of hindsight, it was bonkers to back the rebels against Gaddafi and his mob, they're as bad as each other. If involvement was absolutely necessary then cut the coast road to keep them apart and let the UN sort it out.

500N

Mike

But the rebels didn't have people in the US/Europe with hidden agendas
- Lockerbie, Weapons/Semtex/IRA, PC Yvonne Fletcher, Oil/Gas.

Gaddafi had some form on an international scale, more so than maybe Saddam ?
.